CC Staff Report 10-13-08
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227,1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952,227,1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227,1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952,227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227,1110
Web Site
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
Angie Auseth, Planner I
DATE:
o~.
October 13, 2008
SUBJ:
Nick's Storage and Parking CUP 87-2 Amendment
Planning Case #08-10
1900 Stoughton Avenue
PROPOSED MOTION:
The City Council approves an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #87-2
(Planning Case #08-10) to permit a total of 60 outdoor storage spaces to be located
in Phase III of the site subject to conditions 1 through 15 on pages 12 through 14 of
the staff report and the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 87-2 to allow a
total of 60 outdoor storage stalls at an existing mini-storage facility.
AUGUST 25, 2008 CITY COUNCIL: TABLED ACTION
This item was tabled at the August 25, 2008 City Council meeting due to the
discrepancy with the signage and whether sign permits were applied for and
approved in 1987 for the existing signs located on the property.
Staff has since worked with the applicant to eliminate the sign variances request on
the property. Staff is incorporating the sign ordinance from 1986 which permits one
sign per street frontage, one of which may be a pylon sign (along old Highway 212
frontage). The sign along Stoughton A venue will be lowered and brought into
compliance with the definition of a ground low-profile sign and the two remaining
signs will be removed.
The drainage issues for the property have been resolved and were presented at the
July 14,2008 City Council meeting. A condition for a drainage and utility easement
and security for the construction of the detention pond located on the Dungey
property has been added. .
The staff report has been updated in a strike-though and bold format to reflect these
changes.
Chanhassen is a Community for life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Todd Gerhardt
Nick's Storage and Parking
October 13, 2008
Page 2
The City Council minutes for August 25,2008 are attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the amended motion as specified on
pages 12 through 14 in the staff report dated June 17, 2008 approving the conditional use permit
and the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision.
2. August 25, 2008 City Council Minutes.
3. July 14, 2008 City Council Minutes.
4. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated June 17,2008.
5. Amended and Restated Conditional Use Permit #87-2/Interim Use Permit #92-1.
g:\plan\2008 planning cases\08-10 nick's storage & parking\1O-13-08 executive sununaty.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
INRE:
Application of Jacques Gibbs for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 87-2 to allow a total
of 60 outdoor parking stalls at Nick's Storage and Parking located in the Fringe Business (BF)
District.
On June 17, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Jacques Gibbs for an amendment to conditional use permit
87-2 for property located at 1900 Stoughton Avenue. The Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the proposed application preceded by published and mailed notice. The
Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak.
On October 13,2008, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Jacques Gibbs for an amendment to conditional use permit
87-2 for property located at 1900 Stoughton Avenue. The City Council now makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Fringe Business (BF) District.
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Office/Industrial.
3. The legal description of the property is shown in the attached Exhibit A.
4. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a
proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of
the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items:
a. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
Finding: The original Conditional Use Permit was approved in 1987 and is
therefore a temporary use until MUSA phasing scheduled for 2015. When sewer
and water become available to the site, the parcels may be rezoned to
Office/Industrial and accommodate a more intense use. Approval of the
amendment to Conditional Use Permit 87-2 to allow a total of 60 parking stalls
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or
general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The outdoor storage area labeled
Phase III was approved in 1992; however, it was specific to the number and type
of vehicles stored on the site. The applicant has installed security cameras and an
automated entrance gate which is only operable during scheduled business hours.
1
The applicant will provide additional landscaping along the fence line to provided
100 percent screening to traffic along Highway 212.
b. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
Finding: The site received a conditional use permit in 1987 for the existing mini-
storage facility. Sewer and water is not available to the site until Municipal
Urban Service Area (MUSA) phasing, scheduled for 2015. Based on the
conditions of approval for the amendment to the CUP, the request is consistent
with the city's comprehensive plan. The Conditional Use Permit allows
reasonable use of the property until sewer and water become available, at which
time the site may be rezoned to Office/Industrial and accommodate a more intense
use.
c. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will
not change the essential character of that area.
Finding: The mini-storage buildings are currently constructed on the site.
Outdoor storage was approved in 1992 for 24 rental trucks and trailers. The 60
stalls for various vehicles may change the trip frequency of the mini-storage;
however, the mini-storage facility is open Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to
6 p.m., Saturday from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., and closed on Sunday. The applicant has
upgraded the site by installing a video security system that runs 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, and an automated entrance gate that operates from 6:30 a.m. to 8 p.m.
daily. The character of the area will not change with the addition of the outdoor
storage stalls.
d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Finding: The existing mini-storage facility has been in business since 1987. The '
60 parking stalls may increase some of the traffic to the site; however, the mini-
storage has specific hours. The gate automatically closes and is locked between
the hours of 8 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.
e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of
the proposed use.
Finding: The site does not have sewer and water services available to the site
until MUSA phasing, scheduled in the year 2015. The detention pond will
provide adequate drainage and stormwater treatment prior to entering Assumption
Creek. The site is currently served by Stoughton A venue, which is maintained by
2
the City of Chaska. The applicants have installed security cameras and a self-
closing gate on the property for off hours to ensure safety on the site.
f. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will
not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: The site will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
The mini-storage has been in operation since 1987 and all outdoor storage shall be
100 percent screened from public view.
g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions
of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,
odors, rodents, or trash.
Finding: The use will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare. The 60 storage spaces may increase the traffic to the site; however, the
intention of the site is for the storage of recreational vehicles. The hours of
operation are limited to Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturday 10 a.m.
to 3 p.m., and closed on Sunday. The applicant has upgraded the site by installing a
video security system that runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and an automated
entrance gate that operates from 6:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily.
h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic
congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding: The site currently has access off of Stoughton A venue; there have not
been any issues with traffic congestion from the site.
1. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or
historic features of major significance.
Finding: Based on the conditions of approval for the mini-storage and outdoor
storage, the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar
access, natural or scenic or historic feature of major significance. The applicant is
proposing to install a detention pond according to NURP standards, to treat the
stormwater prior to entering Assumption Creek.
J. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Finding: The mini-storage is an existing facility and will not change the aesthetic
appearance of the area. In addition to the proposed 60 parking stalls, as a
condition of approval, the applicant will install landscaping to screen the outdoor
storage from public view along Highway 212.
3
k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Finding: The proposed 60 parking stalls will not depreciate surrounding property
values as the storage facility has been in operation for over 20 years. The
applicant will also ensure that the outdoor storage is 100 percent screened along
Highway 212.
1. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Finding: The mini-storage buildings have been active since 1987 and meet the
use criterion of the city code. Based on the conditions of approval, the outdoor
storage will meet the 100 percent screening requirement of the city code with the
addition of 15 Black Hills Spruce along the fence line. Thus, there will be
minimal visibility from Highway 212. The proposed detention pond meets all of
the NURP standards required by city code.
5. The planning report Planning Case #08-10 datyd June 17,2008, prepared by Angie
Auseth et al is incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen City Council approves the amendment to the conditional use permit to
allow a total of 60 outdoor storage stalls on property located at 1900 Stoughton A venue, based
on these Findings of Fact.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 13th day of October, 2008.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
BY:
Its Mayor
4
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
and we also give you the benchmarking for law enforcement compared to last year and previous
years so and, like Pete said it will be coming on in our September meeting.
Councilman Litsey: Good.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anything else? This evening. Very good. Thank you. Appreciate
it. Chief Geske's here this evening as well. Good evening Chief.
Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. Has been slow since the last update, which is good, and I'll
again chalk that up to fire prevention. And speaking of fire prevention, we have started planning
for Fire Prevention Week which is the second week of October and our open house that we have.
I'll have, next month I'll have the dates and times for you for our open house. But during that
week we do ask for volunteers of the fire department to take time off from their job to help us
and their fire marshal to do training for, and fire prevention activities for the students in
Chanhassen so look forward to that and we've already started planning for that coming up here
in October so. Like I say, we had a pretty slow month last month so I don't have a whole lot of
report for you.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Very good. Thank you. Any questions for Chief Geske?
Councilman Litsey: I was just going to bring up you know you had mentioned... appreciation at
our work session. It's nice to see that and the good work that you're doing out there and that the
public's recognizing that so good job.
Chief Gregg Geske: Alright, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Chief.
NICK'S STORAGE & PARKING. 1900 STOUGHTON A VENUE. APPLICANT.
JACQUES GIBBS: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
VARIANCE REQUEST.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you mayor, members of the council. This item was at your July 14th
meeting and was tabled and the, there's two separate property owners involved. Again Nick's
Storage, which has an interim use and a conditional use on the site. At that time one of the
parcels was sold, Parcel A which includes Phases I and II. At that meeting there was a request
from Mr. Dungey who owned Parcel B to provide the ponding on the site, so since the July 14th
meeting staff, including planning and engineering, met to resolve, providing through their
consultant, providing adequate stormwater and the off site property. The issue that we had there
was that there be some conveyance to make sure that that's maintained even though it's off site
so that has been done and that is a condition of approval in the site plan itself. I have a little bit
more detail but I, unless you have questions on that, I don't think it's necessary to go through,
just the fact that it does meet the conditions of approval with the letter of credit as recommended.
The other issue that was still outstanding was that we did recommend a variance on the signs.
The applicant still wants to have additional signage on the property, which we are not
supporting. So with that we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report.
5
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Again amending the conditional use and then we did provide additional conditions specifically
regarding the stormwater ponding and letter of credit, including additional landscaping. So with
that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Just to clarify then, one of the,
this was actually tabled at the applicant's request.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: At the last meeting. Or last time we addressed this and one of the material
changes on their part was the property owners now of Parcel A and B have come to a private
agreement for the location of the storm water management system on Parcel B for the benefit of
Parcel A.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct because really there's two issues involved. One, having it sized
adequately and designed properly. And the second issue was to make sure that there was
security in place to make sure that that was constructed as a plan indicated and that it's
maintained. So that's in place now.
Councilman Litsey: So you're comfortable with what's been achieved here?
Kate Aanenson: With the stormwater ponding, yes.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay. And then the question is, you said there's still a difference
between the applicant and the staff with regard to the signage.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Do you want to take a quick summary on the signage?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I can go through that.
Mayor Furlong: Because there are 4 signs, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. We did recommend, because of the visibility they're required...on 212
that they be provided an additional sign there. Again this is the business fringe district which
does allow one monument sign per lot and 24 square feet. These are the signs that are in place
right now. I didn't, that don't meet the ordinance regarding height and not receiving a permit.
And then the pylon sign is certainly one that they still want to maintain so we are recommending
still the variance for the one sign, the larger sign, and the existing entrance sign which is still
permi tted.
Mayor Furlong: And when you say larger sign, that is sign 2, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
6
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Mayor Furlong: So the, in the staff report there's signs 1 through 4. Staff is recommending
Signs 1,2 and 4 be allowed as long as they're brought into compliance with ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: But not allowing sign 3 which is the...
Kate Aanenson: Right, and the one does give, does allow the larger sign via variance and that
was the yeah, correct. Because of the setback.
Mayor Furlong: Variance. Okay. Any questions for staff?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, with sign number 3, I think that's the, was that lit?
Craig Mertz: It was.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: It looks like it was externally lit.
Craig Mertz: It was internally lit.
Kate Aanenson: Was it? Okay. Yep, it looks like there was something there. Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, I see the applicant is
here. Anything you'd like to address the council on this evening?
Craig Mertz: Yes, Craig Mertz again speaking for the applicant. Yes, we still are seeking the
outdoor storage stalls and the plan is that they would have a grass surface rather than a paved,
gravel surface. The drainage, Mr. McCain is here to answer any questions that you might have
about the drainage plan. Mr. Dungey is here who could tell you about two different things. One
is that he's in the loop on the drainage plans that we've got ready here, and he also is prepared to
tell the council that that sign dates back, the pylon sign dates back to when he built the buildings
at the initial, initiation of the project and we have a Certificate of Completion that was issued by
the City back at that time indicating that the property was in compliance. While it doesn't
specifically mention the pylon sign, that's what we took it to mean. That that was the approval
for the whole thing. So the applicant is asking that we get the pylon sign as part of this project.
The signs that are depicted on the report here, we re-faced those signs but they're the same size
and location as when we bought the property so it's not like we snuck in and tried to put bigger
signs on the property so if you would like to hear Mr. Dungey's recollection, he is here and I do
have multiple copies of the Certificate of Completion indicating that the building official and the
planning department and the fire marshal and the engineering department all signed off on the
property back in the summer of 1999. Mr. Gibbs, you got anything you want to add to this?
Okay. Alright, thank you.
7
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the applicant at this point? Ms. Aanenson, the Certificate of
Completion, is that?
Kate Aanenson: I was just made aware of that at a little after 7:00 so I can't comment on that.
Our previous record, and as stated in the staff report, said that we did research and we were not
able to find any permit for that sign. Pylon sign or the other one so that's the best information I
can gIve you.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, Mr. Mertz did you say it was 1999?
Craig Mertz: Summer of 1999 is a Certificate of Completion for commercial properties and
contains language that the building official and the planning department are certifying that the
property's been inspected and the improvements to the best of their knowledge comply with the
requirements of the building and zoning ordinances of the city. Now it doesn't specifically say
signs but that's the way we took it.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: What are you reading off of?
Craig Mertz: I'm reading off of a document called a Certificate of Completion on city
stationary.
Mayor Furlong: What were we doing in 1999? That was before my time.
Kate Aanenson: Typically when there's a financing issue, sometimes a bank will ask for
compliance. A zoning compliance letter. For financing reasons. I haven't seen that so I can't
speak to it.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. If sign 3, and I'm not going to suggest it was
either the only non-conforming or what it is, but they're requesting a sign variance so it's
certainly within your discretion. They want the variance for the larger sign, to require the
removal of sign 3 in any case. And that's your choice. You wouldn't have to do that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Councilwoman Tjomhom.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: I want to thorough that I understand what I'm reading. Kate, do you
have it?
Kate Aanenson: No I don't.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: So where in this paragraph, this certificate, does it state that they
have sign 3 up and that it's acceptable?
Kate Aanenson: It doesn't.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: So how is this valid for the argument of sign 3? And I'm just, I'm
just asking.
8
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Ken Engel: It infers that from the. . .
Mayor Furlong: If you could please come to the microphone sir and identify yourself for the
record.
Ken Engel: I'm Ken Engel. I'm counsel to Progress Valley. The Certificate of Completion
commercial that many of you are looking at, the last two lines of the first paragraph. Or I should
say, this is a certification by initially a building official, Douglas W., I can't read the last name
but it reads that this certifies that I've inspected the building, etc. and to the best of my
knowledge and belief premises comply with all the requirements of the building and zoning
ordinances of the city of Chanhassen. That's an all encompassing phrase and we deem that and
recommend that it be interpreted to mean that the property is in full compliance, including with
all signage requirements.
Craig Mertz: The last time we were before the council Mr. Dungey stood up and said that it was
his recollection that he had a footings inspection by city staff in connection with the installation
of the sign and this is the closest as we can come for a document that supports Mr. Dungey's
recollection. Counsel has told you that this is up as, before you as a variance request and the
pylon sign when we bought the property was the key factor on how this business draws in it's
customers. That's the sign that the commuters can see on Highway 212 at night and could
actually recognize what the business was that was attempting to attract customers and we have
suffered a business deficit since this sign has been taken down approximately a year ago.
Councilman Litsey: Just one question before you sit down. This is very broad and general and
so what we're saying here is we have no specific documents that can show that that pylon sign
was part of this?
Craig Mertz: We couldn't find a sign permit. The city couldn't find a sign permit. We couldn't
have any evidence that there wasn't a sign permit. We do have this document which indicates
that there was a comprehensive inspection in the summer of 1999 and we know that from what
Mr. Dungey told the council, that he had a footings inspection in connection with the pylon sign.
The pylon sign is not a recent addition to the property. It's been there from the beginning.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Are you saying that this was a result of the footings inspection for the?
Craig Mertz: That's the only document we could come up with that backs up what Mr. Dungey
told the council.
Ken Engel: Sequentially we don't, I'm sorry.
Mayor Furlong: I was just going to say, when was the sign first installed?
Craig Mertz: Can Gary talk?
9
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Gary Dungey: That sign was installed I would say 1989 or 1990.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Gary Dungey: Was about when we put it in, and I know that we had to have an inspection for
the pad because of the size of the bolts for that pylon sign and the steel in the pad, but I don't
have a record of the permit. That's just too long ago so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mayor, I have a question for Kate while he's still up there.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: .. .City Manager, anybody, were pylon signs allowed in 19997
Kate Aanenson: 1999? No.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Whenever it was installed?
Kate Aanenson: He said 1991.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'm sorry, '91.
Gary Dungey: '89 or '90.
Ken Engel: In fact this post dates that installation by a decade.
Gary Dungey: So I would think that if that, if there was an issue with that sign when we had the
occupancy, why wouldn't they have said something?
Councilman McDonald: Can we get an answer to Councilwoman Tjornhom's question? Was it
allowed in 1989 or 1990? What were the zoning ordinances?
Kate Aanenson: I couldn't tell you. It predates me being employed by the city and I don't feel
comfortable responding without doing some research on that.
Councilwoman Ernst: So I have another question. When we talk about the premises of the
property here, and maybe you can't answer this question either right now Kate but I'm
wondering if there was like an additional certification or an additional permit that had to be in
place for signage versus the premises? This, the way I read this today, it sounds like it
encompasses the premise in general. So I'm wondering if there needs to be an additional permit
for that or not.
Kate Aanenson: Are you asking about the Certificate of Compliance?
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah.
10
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Kate Aanenson: Okay. It's just saying to the best of my ability it meets zoning requirements.
Roger Knutson: I'm not sure I understand the question.
Councilwoman Ernst: So in this Certificate of Completion that we have in front of us now, it
says that, it basically certifies that they're in compliance with the premise. The premise, as
they've stated today, would include the sign. So the sign, it sounds like would have already been
there. So what I'm saying is it sounds like it's encompassing of the premise with the sign there.
Unless there's something different that was required at that time, and I don't know.
Roger Knutson: I assume there is nothing. These are traditionally, as someone mentioned,
requested when there's a property transfer or whether there is financing going on or something
where they want like this. And the person looked at this, looked at the property apparently and
said they were, to the best of their knowledge they were no violations.
Councilwoman Ernst: Right. And that's the way I would read this as well.
Roger Knutson: I would just point out, the recommendation from staff is to grant a variance for
the sign conditioned upon something. In other words removal of Sign 3. That condition can
stand whether or not the sign was legal when it was installed. They're really independent issues.
And if they find Sign 3 is very important to them, they don't have to accept that condition. They
can reject the sign variance and stay with Sign 3 if it were legal when it was put up.
Ken Engel: The situation we have with the certificate, if I may, is that the certificate identifies
the property by it's legal description. It talks about the buildings and improvements on the
property and then summarizes them by referring to them as the premises. None of us can answer
the question were pylon signs permitted in 1989 or 1990. Were they were permitted in 1999?
No one here can currently answer that question but one issue that I think the council needs to
take a look at is the fact that, according to Mr. Dungey's testimony, the city engineer came out to
the property in 1989 or 1990 to inspect the installation of footings for that pylon sign. The only
way that a city official would have come out to the property would have been based on the
issuance either of a permit or a complaint, and according to Mr. Dungey's testimony, the official
was satisfied with the footings for that pylon sign. And then 10 years later we have a certificate
signed by four city officials identifying that property in it's entirety is in compliance with all
zoning requirements of the city.
Kate Aanenson: But for we have no record of that inspection so did someone from Chaska
inspect it? We don't know.
Councilman Litsey: I'm just curious, why don't we have records? I mean normally would we
have records back that far as part of our record retention...
Kate Aanenson: Yes, we should. We should.
Councilman Litsey: Normally those are kept on file.
11
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman McDonald: Can I ask a question that kind of goes to this? If at the time all of this
was put in place those signs were legal and nothing's been changed, why wouldn't it be alright to
continue? Why do they need a variance? If everything was in compliance at the time they were
put up. The sizes. The heights and everything. Why do we need a variance at this point?
Kate Aanenson: Not all those signs were in place.
Councilwoman Ernst: Which signs weren't, I'm sorry.
Councilman McDonald: Yeah. Well, that's the question. Which signs were not in place?
Which are the new ones?
Todd Gerhardt: I think you know, to try to provide some clarity to this that back in ' 87 they did
the first phase of the mini-storage. Then at that time on the site plan it did not show any location
of signs. And we have no records of sign permit going in, and then in 1990 you came in for the
second addition. Put an expansion where this certificate. You did some additional work then to
get this certificate, correct?
Ken Engel: That's not correct.
Todd Gerhardt: Then why did you get the certificate in 1999?
Gary Dungey: '99. That would have been I think for the last two buildings.
Todd Gerhardt: So you did work and our engineers went in there and told them right here on the
bottom, need to pave the driveway, so they inspected those 2 additional buildings. Whatever was
on site, they didn't look at. They were just looking at the new construction that was approved,
and now you've seen ownership change. Angie found the signs not to be in compliance with
ordinance. They're coming through the process asking for the variance and you're within your
rights to kind of give and take as a part of that variance process. So that's where we are today.
Councilman Litsey: So you're saying then the inspection in 1999 really focused on those
improvements and not the entire property?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. I mean this may kind of lead you to believe that we inspected the entire
site but I believe my staff went out there and looked at whatever the new improvements that
occurred.
Councilman Litsey: That was the focus.
Todd Gerhardt: They didn't look at the over site, the entire site because we didn't look at the
drainage issue. The stormwater pond. You know there's another thing that we probably should
have at that time. We're kind of cleaning things up now and that's kind of where we're at.
12
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Ken Engel: With all due respect, the certificate does not give us any indication of was there any
limitation on the review by the four officials who signed this. We don't know that there was any
limitation. We don't know whether or not they did or didn't walk the entire site. All we have is
the certification before us which states that the property was fully in compliance.
Councilman Litsey: But conversely, you could also make the same argument that it did focus on
that. You're saying you know you want it, and I understand why. You're saying it was,
encompassed the whole properties but you could make a case for that, but you can also make a
case that they came in and probably just looked at the improvements. Focused on that and that
was the extent.
Gary Dungey: The sign sits right by the last two buildings.
Councilman Litsey: I'm sorry.
Gary Dungey: I say that sign sits right by the last two buildings.
Councilman Litsey: But that was already there, right?
Gary Dungey: Yeah.
Councilman Litsey: So the case could be made, they perhaps didn't focus on that because it's
already been there. They just looked at the improvements and just kind of discounted it. You
know we're, it's speculation.
Gary Dungey: I know. Virtually it was there you know 10 years prior to that.
Councilman Litsey: It's speculative and so we really don't know.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: You know I don't know if it's speculative because I'm sure, I mean
you go back to our web site, you can go onto a council agenda for 1997 and so I'm sure we have
to have a record as to if we allowed pylon signs in the early 90' s. I just can't believe we don't
have somewhere in our city hall vaults something.
Councilman Litsey: I agree. I agree. I think this document perhaps is speculative but if we
could get a better definitive answer, I think that's a good suggestion.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Sure. But I mean that would probably answer the question is where
they allowed or weren't they.
13
City Council Meeting - August 25,2008
Councilman Litsey: Yes.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: You know because if they weren't allowed then, then why, you
know.
Todd Gerhardt: Well even if they were allowed, we didn't get a permit for them and we don't
have a record of a permit.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: So we have no records at all for anything that happened there?
Ken Engel: You have a record before you. . .
Todd Gerhardt: For the buildings but not the signs.
Ken Engel: ...in 1999 the property was fully compliant.
Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, have you seen this document before this evening?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Furlong: I don't know when you, did you try to get this to staff to make them aware of
this at any time?
Ken Engel: We only found it recently. Just came across records that were delivered to us by Mr.
Dungey and Mr. Brown. And we can provide an original, that's not a problem.
Mayor Furlong: It's not a question of original. It's just make sure that staff has the same
information prior to the meeting that you have I guess is part of my question. I guess the
question of whether or not, what was our sign ordinance at the time and whether or not these
being in compliance is a question that could be researched as well as whether or not sign permits
were required at that time. Could also be researched, because that sounds like it's a question that
the council like to hear to find out, but both of those could be researched I assume.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Because I want to make a fair choice you know based upon the facts
that I have in front of me I guess. Not to make sure that it's being, obviously we don't have
them now but if at one point there was a time in 1990 when we did, then I need to know that to
understand what the history is.
Craig Mertz: Could I ask the question of city manager? Mr. Gerhardt, in the 18, in the late
1980's, weren't we keeping the city archives in the barn out at Lake Ann Park and we lost a
bunch of records because of water damage?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Craig Mertz: Okay.
14
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
Todd Gerhardt: Not our building permits.
Councilwoman Ernst: So I would like to make another comment in terms of, I keep going back
to this premise. So even if we did have an ordinance that did not allow pylon signs at that time,
this verbiage that's in here, unless it would say excludes something, it says premises. And so I
would keep coming, I keep coming back to that. We're talking about premise.
Mayor Furlong: And as I continue to read this, and one of the I think, a little research that staff
could also do is find out for what purposes was this certificate issued. I assume that may also be
in the file. Because here it describes the premises, Councilwoman Ernst and you're right, to be
occupied as a storage building. It's not talking about the property and size and everything but
it's premises as a storage building so you know I guess the question is, for what purpose was this
certificate issued and what work was completed to that end. However, I guess I ask the question,
I know that the last time we worked with this there was an extension required of the applicant. Is
our time frame such, do we have any time available to us with the current extension?
Kate Aanenson: No, we need another extension.
Todd Gerhardt: Roger's working on a letter.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point with regard to the applIcant or staff?
Councilman McDonald: If I could Mr. Mayor. Were signs 1 and 2 the ones that are the new
ones that are definitely are not in compliance? When you put that slide up there. So signs 1 and
2 definitely are not in compliance because they would be newer.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman McDonald: So those would require either a variance or need to be removed.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. So the issue becomes signs 3 and 4, is that correct?
Councilwoman Ernst: Or is it just 3?
Mayor Furlong: Well I guess to clarify. Mr. Mertz, is it the applicant's contention that these
signs have not increased in size or dimension at all? What originally. That these new signs are
identical?
Craig Mertz: If the planner can go back to, can you go back one? Okay. Our under, the sign
number 1 and sign number 2, and Jake can look at me if I'm saying this incorrectly, they were of
that height and of those dimensions when we took possession of the property. What we did is we'
ordered new letters and images on the signs. So we didn't change it's height or it's width or
altitude above the ground. We just put it, we ordered a new face, and if you can go to screen
number, next. Oops. There was, and in the materials that we submitted we showed you a picture
15
City Council Meeting - August 25, 2008
of the face, faces plural, that were on each side of that pylon when we took possession of the
property. It advertised the site as being Progress Valley, and one of the faces was damaged in a
weather related incident and it was, when the face was damaged it was decided at that time that
we would start doing business as Nick's Storage rather than Progress Valley, and we ordered the
replacement faces that would fit in that 6 foot by 10 foot space at the top of the pylon and those
faces are in one of the storage garages out at the site right now so yes, we were proposing to
change the images but we weren't changing the sizes from the way we found the property when
we bought it.
Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mertz then, are you saying signs 1 and 2 are also older signs with
just new faces? I'm just trying to get a.
Craig Mertz: That's all we did was we ordered new faces for those locations. They are the same
dimensions and the same heights.
Mayor Furlong: The posts and the foundation haven't been replaced?
Gary Dungey: No.
Councilman Litsey: Do those date back to 1999?
Gary Dungey: Prior.
Councilman Litsey: Or prior to that.
Gary Dungey: ... those in 1987.
Councilman Litsey: Right, but this document you produced on a Certificate of Completion, were
all four of those signs in place with the dimensions that you're now?
Gary Dungey: 1,2 and 3 were, yep. Number 4 was not. That's a new one.
Councilman Litsey: That is a new one.
Ken Engel: That's sitting right on Stoughton Avenue and 212. On the ground.
Councilman Litsey: Yep.
Ken Engel: That's the only one that's different. Or new.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson, do we have an agreement for any extension this evening?
Roger Knutson: I don't know. I prepared something very quickly. I don't know if he's.
Craig Mertz: We've signed the extension agreement.
16
City Council Meeting - August 25,2008
Roger Knutson: And if you accept, if the council wants to accept the extension, then we can.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Table it?
Mayor Furlong: Table it and research the questions and I guess if that's the direction council
wants to go, I would also ask the applicant to work with staff and so that we can kind of
complete this at our next meeting rather than raising more questions. I think that would be to
everybody's benefit. We have raised some questions here this evening. I guess with that it
sounds like we won't have the answers this evening so with the extension being signed, I guess
at this point it likely would be appropriate to entertain a motion to table this to a subsequent
meeting.
Councilwoman Ernst: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: Second.
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council table
the request for an amendment to a conditional use permit and variances. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
SCHNEIDER DOCK. 640 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD (OUTLOT A. REICHERT'S
ADDITION). APPLICANT. GARY & CYNTHIA SCHNEIDER: REQUEST FOR A
VARIANCE AND A WETLAND AL TERA TION PERMIT TO INSTALL A DOCK.
Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, councilors. I'm here tonight before you for a dock variance
request. Gary Schneider, the applicant is in the audience tonight if you have any questions for
him. The request for a variance is for the 10 foot dock setback and in conjunction with this
there's also a wetland alteration permit which is requesting a no net loss determination, and I'll
explain that a little bit further. The property is shown here in orange. It is off Pleasant View
Road on the northern extremes of the lot. Outlot A is south of Pleasant View and the 640
Pleasant View is to the east or north of Pleasant View. The lot was, when it was subdivided with
Reichert's Addition, this was just Outlot A. Existing conditions that are on the site today. It was
subdivided with convergent side lot lines making it virtually impossible to put in a conforming
dock that would meet the goals of a lot, or a lakeside lot. That being access to the water for
navigational purposes. Recreational purposes, and/or other water oriented uses. The dock that is
shown to the east, to the right on the picture is Mr. Schneider's dock. You' II see there is a dark
dashed line. That is the lot line extended and within that is a lighter dashed line. That would be
the 10 foot setback for that dock. So it extends beyond, through the 10 foot setback. Through
the subsequent 10 foot setback for Outlot B, and into the water front in front of Outlot B. The
dock to the west is Mr. Thielen's dock. Mr. Thielen has worked with Mr. Schneider, and vice
versa to agree upon this alignment that is shown there so that it does not impede with Mr.
Thielen's access to his dock. Reichert's Addition was subdivided in 1978 and this is 5 years
prior to the city's dock ordinance going into effect which would have made this lot in non-
compliance. At the time four outlets were created. They being Outlot A, B, C and D. Outlot A
17
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
19. Any existing public utility not covered by right-of-way or easement will require drainage and
utility easements to be dedicated on the final plat for the Crossroads of Chanhassen 2nd
Addition.
20. The sidewalk on the west side of Crossroads Boulevard will need an easement over the
portion which is not in the right-of-way.
21. Storm runoff from Crossroads of Chanhassen 2nd Addition must discharge to the drainage
pond constructed with Crossroads of Chanhassen.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to o.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council
accept the +\- .02 acres of land adjacent to Crossroads Boulevard Right-of-Way from
MnDot and approve the Quit Claim Deed. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
NICK'S STORAGE & PARKING. 1900 STOUGHTON AVENUE. APPLICANT:
JACQUES GIBBS: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 87-2. VARIANCE REQUESTS.
Nick's Storage. This item did appear before the Planning Commission on June 17th. The
Planning Commission unanimously approved the project. There's two motions. One to amend a
conditional use and one for a variance for a sign permit. So I'd like to give you the background
on this application. It's a little complex. When it first came before the staff, we spent a lot of
time trying to resolve how to reconcile the application itself and we took a course of action that
we felt, based on the circumstances, seemed to make the most sense. The site itself is located
along the 212 corridor on Stoughton Avenue. This would be Stoughton and this is 212. It's also
bordered by Chaska. Chaska has these pieces here, and also the abandoned trail along here. This
is Chaska and the Gedney Pickle site which is in Chanhassen. And then this parcel here is with
the newly upgraded Xcel Energy site. So the site itself is zoned business fringe. Business fringe
does allow cold storage, as this is, and outdoor storage. The site was approved way back in
1987, so it's been in place for over 20 years and was amended in 1992, and that's where some of
the ambiguity comes in place with the conditional use and the interim use. So the property that
was approved for a site plan was on Parcel A, and then there's Parcel B. The interim use and the
conditional use go over both parcels, so the entire property within that conditional and interim
use is 16 acres, or 16 acres. So there were 3 phases. The first 2, this was the first phase. These
buildings. Phase II and then Phase III. Again that included 8 storage buildings. So with Phase I
and II, 20% ofthe 16.29 acres were built on and there's additional phasing for 2 additional
buildings on Parcel A. Back in 1992 they wanted, the applicant went to the City Council to get
the original conditions approved to allow trucks and trailers so the interim or the business fringe
district was amended to allow the outdoor storage for the sales trailers. And then behind that
were the conditions outlined for those terms to be met. Staff in their report put together what
those original conditions were and have they been met or not. Again the conditions were that
the, quantify the number of outdoor storage and then the screening and where they could be
confined to. Again everything was confined to Area 1. It should be noted too at that time there
was a ponding requirement on the property in Parcel B. So in 1992 then after a second reading,
6
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
the interim use permit was allowed to allow outdoor storage. So here's where the ambiguity
comes in if you look at the interim use permit. If you go to the standards for the interim use
permit, under the terms of the original conditional use permit, which were attached in the staff
report, it does say in that interim use permit that outdoor storage is permitted. It doesn't quantify
that part and I think the ambiguity came in with the conditional use. So there is a finite time for
this to expire, and I've prepared on condition 12. I added an additional condition but clearly the
intent was that there'd be some sort of term. If you look at the interim use permit it says we
should define the time when this should expire. If you look on the original interim use permit,
that time was ifthere was a violation to the code. If one year it didn't get started. But in looking
at this piece of property, certainly a higher and better use could come along when the city did
provide municipal services. Although the long range guiding of this property is for office
industrial, which cold storage is a permitted use, even in that zoning district so and a fact that it
is zoned to become a higher and better use. This is still a permitted use because we do have two
cold storages currently in the city. One has got the auto related and the other one's right here on
Highway 5, and that is also cold storage so the uses may not be non-conforming. Although
condition 12 that Ijust passed out says that ifthe two additional units come into play, they must
come completely in compliance with the stormwater. Which is in the original conditional use.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me.
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: The, you said additional units. Is that what's referred to as this Phase III?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. If they were to put structures there instead of big cars.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Then they would have to bring that, and that always was a condition in there.
There should be no more outdoor storage.
Mayor Furlong: So the, based upon what prior councils have approved, the outdoor storage for
24 rental vehicles was allowed until such time as they built additional storage structures?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Always was until, yeah. Once those last two buildings are built, there
should be no more additional outdoor storage, and that's consistent and we haven't changed from
that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so the request here, for clarification, is to eliminate the restriction.
Well first of all expand the 24 to 60.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Parking stalls. I've got a question on that.
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
7
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Mayor Furlong: But also not limit the parking stalls to rental trucks and trailers.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Which is what it was originally for.
Kate Aanenson: That is correct. Yep. They're finding other uses. Having said that, that's kind
of the background. The complexity comes in, and why we spent so much time internally trying
to resolve this issue is that, in fact there was an administrative subdivision between Parcels A
and B, so they actually were now under two different ownerships. So when the applicant came
forward to apply for this we said you're already over because you just own this parcel. But in
reviewing that, really the conditional use still goes over, and the interim use, still goes over both
parcels. So the impervious surface, and it seemed punitive because the factual part of this is that
Parcel B has no development rights because all the development rights were absorbed onto
Parcel A. So once sewer and water becomes available, that's the time that triggers the time for
Parcel B to develop. The rest ofthe 9.47 acres.
Mayor Furlong: So the CUP was originally approved covered both A and B.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And the allowable development has all occurred on Parcel A.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. And we're still staying consistent with that, and what we said,
through notification that, to the property owner, that Parcel B has no development rights because
it was all absorbed on Parcel A. And it's not uncommon. We've done that on other property
where there may be future road right-of-way, if somebody wants to build a house. We put the
rest of that in outlot. Kind of at abeyance until such time. We've done that in the 1 per 10.
We've allowed someone to do smaller than 1 acre lot but then they have to put the rest of it so
they meet that requirement, so this would be a similar example of that. But the rest of the
development potential is predicated on the city providing municipal services. And it also allows,
which we put in that district, some reasonable use of that property down in that area while we
created that, kind of that old commercial zone. So because we did this administrative
subdivision, it just made it move complex and in looking at that, we have, I'm working through
the city attorney, you'll be seeing a code amendment coming through that will now, if there's an
interim use or a conditional use on your property, you cannot subdivide it. We didn't have that
in place so the city attorney has recommended that we do that. That has gone to the Planning
Commission. You'll be seeing that amendment but we haven't had too many examples of this
but this is clearly one that it would have been easier to have it all on one parcel. But again we
didn't have an mechanism to stop that. So again we have a piece that was non-conforming. The
development rights go over the entire property so that's the way we process it and that was kind
of one hurdle to get over. Okay? So with that there were some illegal signs noted on the
property and that's what brought to our attention kind of what's happening down there to date
and the applicants wanting to pursue that. So with that we proceeded to, let's clean up what we
have. Make best of what we've got. Permit it and then try to make the conditions reasonable to
8
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
what they're trying to do and reasonable for long term for the city. So one of the things that they
have done is created some ponding piping. That was one of the issues that was brought up
because the pond is, that was dedicated, or let me go back to this picture. It was supposed to be
built on this, or it pre-dates the current development or current NURP pond standards. So really
it was to retain water but was not built to treat water. Our engineering staff, or water resources
had been out there to verify the construction or how that was functioning and that's where these
recommendations are coming forward to you. I know the applicant has asked that they be
allowed to continue to use that but because it was never built to those standards, it's on someone
else's property, we believe to resolve this the best that we can, that they need to provide ponding
on their site to the best of their ability, and that's what we've tried to accommodate here. It's not
perfect. It wasn't in the beginning but it's much, much closer than it was before and it's on their
property and they have control of that and that is one area, issue that they still have with these
conditions and they did appeal that at the Planning Commission but the Planning Commission
did concur with the staff and recommended that they do that ponding. So they have done some
ponding. Created a piping and kind of a swale. There's a recommendation, additional
recommendation that, excuse me. This is what they put in place. The picture back here is
actually, creates a little bit more of a berm. A little bit more retainage for these ponds. So
there's the piping that they have out there today. So that would all be on their property, Parcel
A. So this shows, and I'll get more detail then the berming that's in the wetland, the stormwater
retention area.
Councilman Litsey: Which way's the natural drainage there?
Kate Aanenson: Actually when they redid the street there, I have to go back and find a bigger
map here. It goes over towards that.
Councilman Litsey: Goes over the pond area?
Kate Aanenson: Goes 212. Goes over 212 and that's where we're trying to stop it and retain it
before it goes over, yeah.
Councilman Litsey: So this would push it towards where the pond had been proposed to be?
Kate Aanenson: Well it's keeping it on their property. It's keeping it, sorry I'll go back here.
So we're in this area here.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: So this is where it was originally. On somebody else's property so we're
saying that really that it seems appropriate to keep it on this property.
Councilman Litsey: But you're saying it's not, it's better but it's not perfect so there's still going
to be some drainage probably towards...
Kate Aanenson: No I think with the swale and stufflike that, it's not to NURP standards.
9
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: It's going to retain the water. It's just not built to.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. There shouldn't be that problem.
Todd Gerhardt: So basically slowing the water down a little bit but it's still ultimately going to
head down to that ponding area and then ultimately underneath Highway 212.
Kate Aanenson: It will. Some of that will go that way, correct.
Todd Gerhardt: Into the creek.
Kate Aanenson: Which is how it's been doing it in the past, correct. Slowing it down. Trying to
treat it, which we weren't in the past. That's correct.
Councilman Litsey: Thanks.
Kate Aanenson: Okay. So that's kind of the site plan issues. So really we're saying, we would
allow the additional outdoor storage again up to 60. The discussion there was whether it'd be
hard surface or not. The Planning Commission wanted to leave it no hard surface. Leave that
flexibility in there. And then, so then the next issue was the signs and there was quite a bit of
conditions on the application or the recommendations that regulate the drainage so if you have
questions I'd be happy to answer those but. Then again, we go back to the outdoor storage and
then the rental use and the complexity involved in there. The goal and the interim use permit
require that all outdoor storage be screened. That's something that we need to resolve because
right now it's not completely screened so that is a condition of approval. In looking at the signs,
the applicant alleges that there were a pylon sign in place, and has requested 4 signs, and I'll go
through those in a little bit more detail. Because when they ultimately screen this entire site we
did feel that maybe a variance for one sign because it's set back a ways from 212 and would be
completely screened would be appropriate so we did recommend the variance though so again
the signage in the BF district allows just one monument sign. 24 square feet. It's pretty minimal
with a maximum of 5 feet. So the signs that they had made and wanted to put on the site. The
first one, sign number 1 on Stoughton was 10 feet high. 48 square feet so that one exceeds the
sign area and did not receive a sign permit. Same permit so we are recommending denial of that
one. Sign number 2. Along 212. Exceeds the sign display area. The height limitation. Is
located in MnDot right-of-way and did not receive a permit. So we would support this sign.
This would be the sign area. It needs to be located outside the right-of-way but it would have to
be made smaller, but this would be that area that'd be heavily landscaped along 212 that would
give some identification so really otherwise you're on Stoughton, the residential side so this
would give identification for that, and then that would allow the directional sign. Sign 3 is the
one that has the pylon sign. Again, the BF district doesn't allow signs that tall. This one is 18
feet and 60 square feet in area so we've got 3 significant large signs which is much more than we
have in any other district. So that we also recommended denial and then sign 4 would be the
10
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
directional sign, which we will permit but they need to be smaller to make those work and again
we do allow directional signs for someone to find a business. Again that seems to be an
appropriate use. So again the other thing that we did address was landscaping. They need to
provide that screening on the other so with that we would recommend approval of those 60 with
the conditions in there. The main one being that if in fact they do build those additional
buildings, then the storage has to be eliminated, and maybe we need to further clarify. Let's say
they build one and ifthere's an appropriate, you know that splits the outdoor storage somewhere
because it may be only one additional building gets built and then do the 60 outdoors so maybe
we might want to address, may be that technical but maybe we do want to just talk about that a
little bit too. Ifthey just did the one building so. I didn't address that in the staff report. So with
that we are recommending the conditions we've put in the staff report and I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Questions at this point.
Councilman McDonald: Well I've got a question. I'm a little confused about the ponding. We
created a PUD for the entire site because at that time one person owned it and they had had the
intentions of putting up a storage facility anyway so that's what they built. Then it goes and gets
sold and it gets divided down between the two parcels and now all of a sudden Parcel A is
having to pretty much bare the burden of the ponding. Why can't we enforce the entire PUD
over onto the second lot?
Kate Aanenson: Well we could. Mr. Dungey's here, ifhe wants to speak to that but I'm not sure
that, ifhe doesn't agree to it, what can we do to force him to do it? But for that they could not
proceed.
Councilman McDonald: Well yeah, I don't have the answer.
Kate Aanenson: He sold the property.
Councilman McDonald: He sold the property, you're right but at the time you know all ofthis
was built around one PUD with one piece ofland and the way the burden was spread out across
that, it works. Now all of a sudden we have someone coming back after they bought the second
parcel, and it doesn't work because again we've split it up so.
Kate Aanenson: Well there's two answers to that. One is you can null and void the whole CUP
because it's no longer valid. We didn't think that was a reasonable approach. I'm not sure
trying to make Mr. Dungey do that. Would we stop it until he does?
Councilman McDonald: Well I'm not sure that we accomplish what we're trying to get
accomplished by putting a PUD, by doing what we're doing either. That's where my confusion
comes in is that okay if what we're trying to do is trying to do something about the drainage, and
alleviate some of that, how are we doing that by just having him do a couple swales and some
pipes that go nowhere and all of a sudden where's the water go?
11
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Kate Aanenson: If you look at the report from the consultant's engineer and what we reviewed
internally, I think that they make the case that it does meet the conditions. As best, I'm on page,
well he's on the same page. On page 7 of our staff report. While, this is a summary. While the
proposed infiltration ponds do not meet the NURP standards based on the site complaints with
the exception of, the applicant has taken adequate measures to treat the storm water and rate
control so we believe it does meet that.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess one question. Councilman McDonald obviously this is something
that I think all of us were looking at but the original, if they had followed the original conditions
of approval, which would be, as I'm reading out of the staff report here, designed to limit the
runoff to a pre-development rate of a 100 year storm. Is it true that what they're doing on Parcel
A right now is better in terms of quality and quantity than what would have been done if they
had followed the original plan?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is that correct? What's being proposed here on Parcel A in terms of storm
water quality and quantity.
Paul Oehme: It doesn't completely meet the NURP standards is my understanding. In terms of
water quantity control, but it does do a good job of treating the water before it leaves the site.
Mayor Furlong: Does it do as good a job or better than what would have been in place if the
original 1987 condition had been followed?
Paul Oehme: I think it gets close to the NURP standard.
Mayor Furlong: Because NURP, as I read the staff report, there weren't NURP standards at that
time.
Paul Oehme: I think '88.
Mayor Furlong: And so I guess I'm looking at councilman, a sense of relative here. You know
if it was coming in fresh, and my next question is, what would it take to meet current NURP
standards if they were coming in fresh today. But what was required was this, and my question
is, what they're proposing, is it equal to what was originally required? Or better. Do we know
that? It's not at our current standard.
Paul Oehme: Right. I'd have to look back exactly what was approved back in '87 and I don't
know if we have that data. But in terms of water quality...
Mayor Furlong: Wasn't there some reference to that though in the staff report?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Well as presented in the Planning Commission, really I mean you can
see clearly on this site. It's been driven as a race car track over it. We did walk. It's not
functioning. It's a recessed area. It's not functioning as it was intended. I think the Planning
12
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Commission also considered that. Why can't we just build it big enough to make it, for the
potential. Well we don't know what use, future uses would be on the site to make it big enough.
Certainly that ponding area may not be big enough for the entire parcel when it's fully developed
so it seemed reasonable that when this parcel got split off, that they have to take some ownership
of that by splitting it off, and I'm not sure how we would compel. Maybe the city attorney has
an opinion onthat. How we would compel Mr. Dungey to create the pond that adequately meets
that site.
Councilman McDonald: Well I'm not sure how we compel it either but the thing is that, it holds
up what happens on the second parcel. I mean we have a right within a PUD to say you've got to
meet those requirements.
Kate Aanenson: But the person asking for the request is Parcel A, and that's the only person I
can control. Is Parcel A is asking for an increase in use. So the nexus would be that require
them to adequately manage that.
Councilman Litsey: So in the staff report it says the proposed improvements are more effective
than the original holding pond requires the condition of approval in 1987.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Litsey: ... water quality and rate or just quality? Or is it the whole thing?
Kate Aanenson: Both. Both.
Councilman Litsey: So as the mayor said, then we're approving a pond, what was there, in place
before in terms of water quality and.
Todd Gerhardt: They're meeting the '87 standard.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah. It's better than what was in place originally.
Kate Aanenson: It's better than that. Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: And I don't know if we want to go down the other track. I mean the other track
gets very complicated and I mean if we're meeting the standard you know, that argument would
be used back against us I think. If we tried to you know enforce the old conditional use permit.
Mayor Furlong: And what would be required from a stormwater management standpoint if they
had to be on Parcel A the current NURP standards?
Kate Aanenson: I can't answer that. As far as quantity, size. Ifit's rate, or deeper pond.
Something like that.
Mayor Furlong: More than what they're doing?
13
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Kate Aanenson: Yep. Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: More than what is being proposed. Okay. And I guess the question is, is the
impervious surface area here on Parcel A and it's really the impervious surface across the entire
area. A and B. Is that what was anticipated back in, is that?
Kate Aanenson: No. The only development rights were on Parcel A.
Mayor Furlong: But is the, is the total impervious surface area on A and B combined because
there's none on B. Is that what was expected when this was originally approved?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Or there's more from a impervious surface standpoint?
Kate Aanenson: No. No, because the only thing that was approved would be Phase A. Would
be Parcel A so if something else went beyond that we probably would have addressed a bigger
pond. At that time it seemed that that was adequate for the 8 buildings. And that's what really
was the intended to accomplish was to.
Mayor Furlong: And the 8 would include the additional 2 that have not been constructed yet.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's correct. So at that time that pond in that comer, where it
was draining to, seemed to be logical to manage all that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I kind of jumped in on your question there to clarify it for me. Any
other thoughts at this point?
Councilman McDonald: That's fine. Well.
Mayor Furlong: Or questions.
Councilman McDonald: There are some other issues with both Parcel A and Parcel B that I
think we'll get into and all I'm trying to get at is, I think that we as a city control the entire CUP
because we issued it and if we're now going to break it up, my question comes then why have it?
I don't understand the advantage to us. I'm not quite sure how to put this but I don't understand
the advantage to us of now enforcing the CUP across the entire property because that's how it
was initially put together.
Kate Aanenson: We are. We are balancing. There's no development rights on Parcel B.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, but if we go and move the ponding over to Parcel A, why can't
the owner of Parcel B then corne in and say that I could do it?
Kate Aanenson: What ifhe chooses not to? Or what can we do to compel him to do that? So
then therefore Parcel A can't go forward because then you have inadequate storm water.
14
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Todd Gerhardt: And if Parcel B was to come in with development, knowing that the pond is on
Parcel A the, we would force Parcel B to treat the water of Parcel A to the level of what our
current standards are. Not that he may have to pull the whole burden of that cost but we would
bring in Parcel A and B into our current standards with the development of Parcel B.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. Let's go ahead. I'm fine with that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point? Other questions for staff?
Councilwoman Tjornhom? Ernst? Litsey? On the signage. What I was reading in the
recommendations of staff, and I believe the Planning Commission are consistent, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: (Yes).
Mayor Furlong: Was in the report and that is to allow a sign on Stoughton A venue. If you can
go back to your 1,2,3,4.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: So the Stoughton Avenue sign, that's allowed currently. That just is not
meeting the current size requirements based on ordinance for this specific, correct?
Kate Aanenson: No. Actually sign 1.
Mayor Furlong: It's height and display area.
Kate Aanenson: Sign 1, yeah. The applicant must replace sign 1. Yes, you're correct. That
meets the sign area.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: It's too large.
Mayor Furlong: But that would under current ordinance be allowed as long as it was, it met the
size and area.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Yep.
Mayor Furlong: The sign 2 is proposed to be allowed by a variance because of the Findings of
Fact and the issues related to the variance request simple because in part they're being asked to
shield naturally with trees visibility of their business from 212.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. In effect screen the entire use so it's hard to see, if you're trying
to find their location. That's correct.
15
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that's the basis there. Sign 4 is a pylon. That doesn't meet it. Sign,
or excuse me. Sign 3. Sign 4 is directional. You said directional's are allowed.
Kate Aanenson: Not that size.
Mayor Furlong: But this one doesn't meet the size.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that's correct.
Mayor Furlong: So a directional sign would still be allowed, and I believe that's one at the
intersection of Stoughton and 212, correct?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that by current ordinance would be allowed. It just has to meet the
right size.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: So that isn't really being addressed in this area.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Furlong: But for the it has to meet current ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: (Yes).
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, and then the other question I had. Well, we'll get back to that
later. Anything else at this point?
Councilman McDonald: Yeah, I had a question about the signs too.
Mayor Furlong: No, that's fine.
Councilman McDonald: Within the report there was some discussion about that sign had been
there for 20 years. Have we as a city ever allowed pylon signs?
Kate Aanenson: No. Not to my knowledge. They have a difference of opinion on that but.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, because.
Kate Aanenson: I can't, since I've been here. 17 years. This was approved 20 years ago so.
Councilman McDonald: Well some of what was said in there was somehow there was a permit
issue that we have no record of it.
16
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Kate Aanenson: Right. We can't find a record of it. We did search for that, and it could have
been done without a permit.
Councilman McDonald: Are there any other businesses that are let's say at least 20 years old
that where there are pylon signs in the city?
Kate Aanenson: There may be along the, I'm trying to think on the, at the bottom of the Y if
there's anything down there. So.
Councilman McDonald: You mean down where the hotel's at and the golf driving range?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. If there's some non-conforming ones down there, but I'm not sure
they're that tall. I know the Brooks Hotel has a pylon sign I believe so.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. That's all.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions for staff at this time then? No? I know the
applicant's here. I believe so anyway so at this time I invite their representative to come
forward.
Craig Mertz: I'm Craig Mertz. I'm the attorney for Nick's Storage and with me is Mr. Engel
who's the in-house counsel for Nick's Storage and Mr. Gibbs who is the principle owner of
Nick's storage and Wendy Langley who is their on-site management and John McCain who is
their consulting engineer, and Gary Dungey is here. I just talked to him for the first time tonight
and Gary's got something he wants to say but if you'll let me talk first it'd be appreciated.
Nick's Storage bought this property in the year 2004 and what we thought we were buying was
an ongoing business that had both cold storage facility plus signage plus outdoor storage and we
thought we really weren't changing anything from what Mr. Dungey and Mr. Brown were doing.
They're the sellers from whom Nick's Storage purchased. On the signs there was a pylon sign
there and there were monument signs on the two highway frontages and all that Nick's Storage
did was order ref acing of those signs and we were unaware of the fact that there was a problem
with the signs since all we did was order ref acing. Specifically what triggered all of this was that
one of the faces on the pylon sign was storm damaged and we ordered replacement faces for that
and Ms. Auseth on a drive by spotted the face change in progress and that led to the compliance
review on the property. The two things that Nick's Storage needs here is both the outside
storage and as much signage as we can get. The real estate taxes since they purchased the
property have gone from approximately $30,000 a year to about $52,000 a year. Before we lost
our pylon sign with Ms. Auseth's compliance inspection, our statistics indicated that about 75%
of our business was coming in from the pylon sign because that's what the people said they saw.
That's what they spotted. That was the sign that was illuminated at night, and the, our
occupancy rate has declined since that sign went down. We're from about 85% occupancy down
to about 65%. Now I can't say whether some of that is attributable to the economy and how
much of that is attributable to the signage but I think that the loss of our pylon sign is a
significant factor on the suffering that we are incurring at the moment. About 1/3 of the gross
income of this business comes from the outside storage so both the signage and the outside
storage is important to us. We're asking that we get these outside storage spaces. The staff
17
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
report talks about them being grassy or gravel. We really want to do them grass and not gravel.
We believe it's going to be easier for us to maintain with lawnmowers than to deal with having
to spray for weeds and what not coming through the gravel so we would like the grass parking
stalls and we'd like as much signing as we can, signage as we can possibly get. Mr. Dungey,
who I met out in front of the building here tonight, tells me that when he was the owner of the
property 20 some, well you had it for 20 some years almost. He remembers working with Don
Ashworth, the then city manager and while he, you can't remember specifically getting a permit
or not getting a permit for the signs, you told me out in front of the building that you do recall
that you did the footings yourself for the pylon sign and that you met with a city inspector who
was approving the footings before putting the pylon onto the footings. And you also told me
that, that you did do dirt work in the ponding area, as indicated on the extreme north portion of
Parcel B. That you hired some scrapper work and what not and you thought you had met the
requirements of the city on the ponding. And you also indicated to me that you had been
watching the water situation over the years and the various big storms that we've had and you
were unaware of any problems with overflow across Highway 212, etc. Have I fairly said those
things that you brought to my attention outside?
Gary Dungey: That's right.
Craig Mertz: Okay. And you also indicated to me that you thought the soils on the north end of
the property were such that there wasn't going to be a big drainage problem out here. Here's the
bottom line is my client is asking that you approve these outside storage spaces and that you
approve it's sign request and then as for the ponding, that you table the ponding part ofthis until
such time as Mr. Dungey and our engineer and your engineering can walk these improvements
that Mr. Dungey did some 20 some years ago for the ponding area on the north for the property.
Is there anything you want to add Mr. Dungey?
Gary Dungey: Well as far as the ponding goes, when we first built that, that was just all sand out
there and nothing was actually, you know all of the dirt work was done in the sand so there was
some erosion problems. But in time that was all seeded with alfalfa and grass and you go out
there now and it's just, it is seeded heavily and runoff from my property. Runoff, everything that
runs north out of the mini storage, it hits that grass. It doesn't even hardly get to that ponding
area. And before the grass and the alfalfa and everything was seeded. In' 87 we had an 11 inch
rain. I don't know how many people remember that, but at that point in time when we had that
11 inch rain in 2 days, the water never went over 212. And with all of the grass and the alfalfa
and everything that's in there now, and it's so much sand, the water soaks into the sand. It
doesn't get to that ponding area anyway. So I really don't know how much of an issue that
ponding area would be. Now 20 years ago it wasn't and like you know today things change but
it works very efficiently just the way it is now. I don't know what more you could really do to it
to change it. There is a culvert that runs underneath 212. If you do get a really heavy rain,
there'll be a little puddle on the other side of212 but I think that's coming from the land that's
over there anyway. And for that water to ever get over to the creek, or the little stream or
whatever that is over there, I just, I don't know how it, I think it would have to be 3 feet over 212
to get to that creek.
Kate Aanenson: Mayor, can I just ask?
18
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Gary Dungey: Because of the elevation.
Kate Aanenson: W did, our Water Resources Coordinator did walk the site so we have walked
and verified the conditions on site so I just want to be clear. I'm not disputing that, at some time
that this was graded and it's seeded but in the Water Resources' opinion it didn't meet the
standards. It wasn't built to any standards and it's not meeting standards today. So that's why
we're recommending additional storm water because it didn't, it was deemed that it wasn't
meeting today's standards.
Councilman McDonald: Okay but isn't that key? If you're saying it's not meeting today's
standards but yet it was set up to meet standards in 1987, does it meet those standards?
Kate Aanenson: It was built over 20 years ago. I don't even think it's functioning today it was
built. It was hand built. I'm not sure it was engineered properly. It was dug by a, not designed
by an engineering standard so I'm saying, the staff's opinion that it didn't meet standards as it
was designed.
Councilman Litsey: When you make an amendment like we're doing, can you then add
additional requirements...?
Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's what we're saying is, that's what I'm saying. That's the
appropriate time if they're asking for additional, what do we believe is appropriate at this time?
We have two different ownerships. How do we insure? We have no control over if pond, this
additional pond up here was to get changed, that's somebody else's property. We have no
control. This person has no control how that pond's being managed. It's on somebody else's
property so the, it's on Mr. Dungey's property so he has no obligation, ifit gets plugged or
something like that, how do we manage some of that so.
Councilman Litsey: So we have to manage everything on Parcel A?
Kate Aanenson: That was our opinion, correct. They should manage some of that on their
parcel. Right.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Craig Mertz: Mr. Mayor, may our engineer make a brief comment to the council?
Mayor Furlong: Ah, certainly.
John McCain: Good evening. My name is John McCain. I'm a civil engineer representing
Nick's Storage. I'd like to try to clarify some of the drainage issues on these two parcels that
have been discussed. When we first met with city staff, we discussed the fact that the CUP does
in fact, as has been discussed here tonight, run with the land and is still applicable on Parcel B as
well as Parcel A. Staff acknowledged that but was unsure about the enforcement question that
has been brought up tonight. Staff asked that we look into what ponding for stormwater
19
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
treatment could be accomplished on Parcel A, while they were looking into the possibility of
creating the ponding that was called for in the original CUP on Parcel B. So we prepared a
ponding plan. It is possible but it is by no means ideal, but we attempted, as city requested, to
provide a concept of what could be done on Parcel A. That concept unfortunately got a life of
it's own and has become a proposal that it was not intended to be. The east half of Parcel A
drains to the north and to the east and runoff from that half of Parcel A will be collected in the
ponds that were shown. Runoff from the west half of Parcel A runs more north, northwest and
due to the layout of the site and the topography it is not even feasible to collect and route runoff
from that half of the property over to the two ponds that were shown. The pond over in the west
comer is going to go into an area that's currently grassed, landscaped and it's going to take out
that area both for usability for Nick's Storage as well as just maneuvering of vehicles around that
end of the storage building. That pond needs to be connected by a pipe to the pond that's shown
on the north comer. The pond on the north comer is constructed with essentially a dike built on
that hillside, and while it's possible to do it, it's not an ideal ponding situation. There's a lot of
dirt that needs to be put into that area. The existing ground needs to be disrupted and we pick up
a little bit of additional storage capacity. Not really worth the effort. And runoff from this
entire, so as regards whether or not the drainage proposal with these ponds complies with current
standards. It does partially for the east half of the property. But the west half is still going to run
off site down to the ponding area that was originally designated in the CUP. So we have a split.
Weare not aware of what the city has done regarding pursuing the ability of the city to enforce
the drainage portion of the CUP on Parcel B. We have since however started working with Mr.
Dungey and believe that we can create the storage that was originally contemplated on Parcel B
where it can fully comply with current NURP standards, and meets the original intent of the CUP
and doesn't shoe horn these little ponds onto Parcel A.
Mayor Furlong: How long would that take to, because wasn't that.. .proposal is to wait on the
stormwater management portion of this?
Craig Mertz: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: How long would that take to work with Mr. Dungey and come up with an
agreement that would bring the entire Parcel A and B up to current NURP standards?
John McCain: The storm water analysis can be done in a week. An agreement with Mr. Dungey
is out of my realm. But my whole point is that, it's a much better solution from the city's
perspective in terms of providing for rate control and storm water treatment to create the ponding
area on Parcel B that was originally envisioned. Because what's proposed with the two small
ponds on Parcel A only gets you halfway there.
Kate Aanenson: Mayor if I may. This is the first time Mr. Dungey has been in, Mr. Mertz just
met him. We've asked for this and so I guess we would say that if they want to work through
that then we would need to table that because we would want to make, change the conditions of
approval if you want to consider that as an alternative because there needs to be again some tie
that, where we have two separate owners. How you maintain. That there's an easement or some
sort of control.
20
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Mayor Furlong: But, but I think the request here is to separate the two. Would that be your
recommendation as well that we separate them?
Kate Aanenson: No, they can tie them together. We've told that to the applicant before but
they've never spoken to him. Obviously this is the first time they've even met so we said that's a
possibility. They've never pursued it. Here we are at the 1ih hour.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, I don't think you can separate them into approving part of the
Conditional Use Permit tonight potentially and part ofthe Conditional Use Permit under
different conditions on another night. If you want to pursue this then I suggest the whole matter
be tabled.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't understand that but yeah, definitely table. Give them
time.
Mayor Furlong: And that was my question.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, to give them time to come back to see if it works.
Roger Knutson: And we can't sit here tonight and design a storm water pond.
Mayor Furlong: Understand. Understand.
Kate Aanenson: Right. So we need some time to go through that and make sure that Mr.
Dungey's on board to do that and it can meet standards and how that whole works and who
maintains it and.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Craig Mertz: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Anything else from the applicant on?
Kate Aanenson: Can we just clarify where we are on time and if they want to give us an
extension.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, why don't you check into that. I just want to make sure from the
applicant that there's nothing else they wanted to address.
Kate Aanenson: Okay.
Craig Mertz: Would council at least consider doing the signage issue tonight? That's not
affected by the drainage.
Kate Aanenson: No. I think we should do it all at once.
21
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Todd Gerhardt: It wouldn't be staffs recommendation. It's up to the mayor and council if you
want to do that but it would be our recommendation not to.
Mayor Furlong: Was there anything else then this evening?
Kate Aanenson: Mayor, if I can just get clarification from.
Craig Mertz: .. .Mr. Dungey wants to explain how the pylon sign got there.
Mayor Furlong: If you could Mr. Dungey, slide to the podium for the microphone. You're kind
of inbetween two microphones.
Gary Dungey: There?
Mayor Furlong: Yep. You don't have to, just talk natural. Thank you.
Gary Dungey: Okay. I put that sign in 20 years ago and we had the sign inspected. I have no
record to this. It's 20 years ago. I do know that when I poured the footing for that sign I had to
have a footing inspection. For the size ofthe footing. The steel in the footing and the size ofthe
bolts to hold the sign. And I had that. That's all I have. So as far as paperwork, I have no
paperwork from 20 years ago for that sign. But the sign at that point in time was put up legally.
I mean you know I wouldn't have painted a sign up there and certainly got by with it for 20 years
so I just wanted you to know that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Gary Dungey: That it was inspected and obviously there had to be a permit for it if we had an
inspection for it so. But I have no paperwork.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any questions for the applicant? I guess whether it's a
question for the applicant or staff just for clarification. I was reading through the Interim Use
Permit that allowed the outside storage for the rental trucks. Specifically spoke to number of
vehicles. It was so many trailers. So many trucks. What's being asked here are basically 60
spaces, and I guess just for clarification. Maybe this is a question to the applicant. Is the request
to have space for 60 vehicles?
Craig Mertz: We want 60 spaces that could be occupied by trailers or by trucks or by boats. Just
60 spaces without designating what exactly would be parked on those spaces.
Mayor Furlong: But it wouldn't be your intention, I noticed motorcycles was one of the items in
here, to put 2 or 3 motorcycles in a single space. I mean you're looking for space for 60
vehicles.
Craig Mertz: RV's, boats and trailers.
Wendy Langley: RV's, boats, trailers, yeah.
22
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Mayor Furlong: And maybe it's a nit but it's just sometimes there's, that each space provides
space for a single vehicle. That's what I hear you asking. That's kind of the way I first read it
but as I was reading through here there was a change in the terminology so I just wanted to
clarify.
Kate Aanenson: We can clarify that.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Okay. Then I guess the question is, if there is a request by the applicant,
do we have a written request or?
Kate Aanenson: We're getting one drafted.
Roger Knutson: If! write any faster you won't be able to read it.
Mayor Furlong: No, I can keep talking abut I don't know if anybody wants to listen.
Councilwoman Ernst: Can I ask just.
Mayor Furlong: Sure...
Councilwoman Ernst: When the applicant referred to wanting grass in the area rather than
gravel. I'm wondering why that would be a problem.
Kate Aanenson: It's not.
Councilwoman Ernst: Oh. Okay.
Kate Aanenson: That was approved by the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Ernst: Because I thought it would really actually contribute to the improvement
of the drainage.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, we recommended that.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions while the city attorney is writing frantically?
Todd Gerhardt: We'll get some boiler plate language and just put them in that pile Roger.
Kate Aanenson: Just for clarification, we're just asking for a waiver until September 1 st. The
construction, there's still cost considerations and association so we just want to make sure we
have enough time in there.
Mayor Furlong: And there would be, between now and September 1 st there'd be 3 additional
council meetings?
23
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And we'll get it on as soon as we can, just so they can execute.
Mayor Furlong: Right. Okay. Does your request still stand?
Craig Mertz: We are asking that in spite ofthe staff recommendation, we're asking that you
bifurcate this and give them sign permits and outside storage permits and table the ponding.
Mayor Furlong: I guess I'd be open to council. Staffhas recommended against that. I'd be
open to council's thoughts there on whether we break that apart. My inclination would be not.
To keep it as a single item but.
Councilman McDonald: No I'm making these great arguments about the fact that I think we
ought to be enforcing the CUP across the entire thing so I think we ought to stay with it's part of
all that. We ought to discuss it when we come back.
Mayor Furlong: Consider all the items together.
Councilman McDonald: Consider all the items together.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts or comments?
Councilman Litsey: I agree. I agree.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. I guess it is, you know either we move forward with everything or
nothing so. Given that.
Craig Mertz: You're in the drivers seat here so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Before we make a motion then you have to sign the waiver. Otherwise they're
going to make a motion.
Mayor Furlong: Otherwise we'll proceed this evening with what we have in front of us.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Roger Knutson: Then the motion would be to accept the applicant's request for an extension of
time and to table the matter until. . .
Kate Aanenson: September 1 st, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Would somebody like to make that motion?
Councilwoman Ernst: I just have one question. So when we're doing this we're going to
approve all those, so it'd be the outside storage.
24
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me. The request now would be to table the entire matter to come back
at a future meeting.
Councilwoman Ernst: Right, but I mean when we approve it or not approve it, it would be either
rejected or approved as a whole package. It wouldn't be broken, none ofthose things would be
broken out separately.
Mayor Furlong: Not necessarily.
Roger Knutson: No, you could when it comes back to you after it's tabled. That's what
happens. You could for example decide to approve the sign variance and not the amendment to
the CUP or vice versa. You can deal with them individually when they come back.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: The request was to separate them tonight. Act on some tonight. Defer others
and it was the sense of all of us to no. Let's just keep all of them on the table unless we have the
whole picture.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: So the city attorney presented a proposed motion. Would somebody like to
move that motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mayor, I move that we accept the applicant's request for additional
time and table the motion.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Roger Knutson: Table the matter. There's no motion.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Table the matter, sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Table the matter to a future meeting.
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Councilman McDonald: I'll second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any other discussion on that?
Councilman Litsey: Do we have to put the date in there or it's not important? It's in there?
Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other discussion?
25
City Council Meeting - July 14, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council
table the request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 87-2 and variance requests
for Nick's Storage and Parking. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 5 to O.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails 5-0. Thank you. Thank you and let's see if we can get
something worked out and look forward to seeing you in a few weeks. Appreciate your efforts.
COUNCIL PRESENT A TIONS:
Councilwoman Ernst: I would just like to say another wonderful Fourth of July event.
Everything that I saw, it was so crowded I could hardly move, so that was a good sign. So good
job to everyone. Todd and your team. It was a great event. I had a good time, and I think
everyone else did too that was there.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I think attendance was up at least 20 plus percent over last year. I don't
know if it was gas prices and people were staying a little closer to home but we really
appreciated it. I think everybody did have a good time. I think we put on a great event you
know thanks to all the outside agencies. The Rotary for organizing so many different things on
the 3rd and the 4th. Especially the parade, which was a huge attendance there also. You always
know when you have a good event is when accidents and incidents are down and we just had a
couple of minor incidents on both days so that's always a positive. You know when nobody gets
hurt, things are good so. Kudos to Todd Hoffman, his staff and all the volunteers and everybody
at city hall that helped pull this event off. It was a lot of fun.
Councilwoman Ernst: Just curious, do we know what our attendance was this year compared to
other years?
Todd Gerhardt: You know there's no way to really count it, other than you know.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah, I kind of figured there wasn't but if you had any kind of idea.
Todd Gerhardt: How many people are close to your shoulders, you know.
Councilwoman Ernst: I think it depends on the time of the day that you get there too. I found
that out.
Todd Gerhardt: If we could measure it on kegs I could tell you.
Mayor Furlong: But to that point, there literally is something for everybody. With the business
expo put on by the Chamber early in the afternoon on the 3rd. You see a number of people there.
You see a different group of people, a lot more families, younger children during the evening
hours during the carnival rides. Then you see, you know and it doesn't mean that it's the total
number of people there is going up or down. But then you see adults enjoying themselves in the
evening on the 3rd so the number of people attending might be the same during that period but
26
PC DATE: 6/17/08
[lJ
CC DATE: 10/13/08
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REVIEW DEADLINE: Waived
CASE #: 08-10
BY: AA, AF, JM, TJ, JS
PROPOSED MOTIONS:
A. The Plarn1ing Commission recommends awr{)~ral of City Council approves an amendment to
Conditional Use Permit #87-2 to permit a total of 60 additional outdoor storage spaces to be
located in Phase III of the site subject to conditions 1 through g 15 on pages 12 through 14 in
the staff report and adoption ofthe attached Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendatiofl."
B. "The Plan.tiag Commission reeommends appro-,<al of City C01lBeiI approves planning Case 08
10 for a sigH '{ariane€! to allow ORe mOl'lameRt sigH along Higln.vay 212 frontage, in addition to
the permitted monurneat along Stoughton .^~-/elllie with col'Jd.itiofls 1 through -1 aD page 13 il'l the
staff report and adoptiOfl ofthe attached Findings of Fact and Recommendatiofl."
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an amendment to Conditional Use Pennit
No. 87-2 to expand the outdoor parking area to allow 60 outdoor storage stalls (current approval allows up to
24 rental vehicles); and a Sign Variaooe R-equest.
LOCATION: 1900 Stoughton Avenue
APPLICANT:
Mr. Jacques Gibbs
6921 Beach Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
612-386-3140
gibbs@nrnfn.com
Mr. Craig Mertz
Craig M. Mertz Law Office, P .S.C.
600 Market Street, Suite 240
P.O. Box 623
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Fringe Business (BF) District
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office Industrial
ACREAGE: 6.82 of 16.29 acres DENSITY: N/A
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on
whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning
Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the
permit must be approved. This is a quasi judicial decision.
The City's discretion in approving or denying a -/'ariance is limited to whether or not the pmposed
project meets the standards in the Zoaing Or-dinanee for ',<ariance. The City has a r'l2ilatively high
level of discretion with a -rarianee because of the burden of pmof is on the applieant to sOO\V that
they meet the standards ifl the ordinanee.
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17,2008
Page 2 of 15
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The subject site (Parcel A) is located at the intersection of Highway 212 and Stoughton A venue,
near the Chaska border and is zoned Fringe Business (BF) District. The BF district allows cold
storage as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 87-2), screened outdoor storage as an Interim Use Permit
(IUP 92-1) and one 24 square-foot, 5- foot high monument sign.
ADJACENT ZONING: The property to the northwest (Parcel B) is vacant and is also governed by
Conditional Use Permit 87-2 (this issue is discussed in detail in the BACKGROUND section of the
report). The property to the northeast, across Highway 212, is zoned Agricultural Estate (A2)
District. The property to the east is a single-family home and zoned Fringe Business (BF) District.
The property to the south is a single-family home and is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2).
WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer service is not available to the site until Municipal and
Urban Service Area (MUSA) phasing, scheduled for the year 2015. The applicant will need to
provide stormwater improvements for the subject site. The stormwater improvements must
comply with Natural Urban Runoff Protection (NURP) standards.
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17,2008
Page 3 of 15
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variance.
Chapter 20, Article IV, Conditional Use.
Chapter 20, Article XX, Fringe Business District.
Chapter 20, Article XXVI, Division 1, Sign Variance.
BACKGROUND
On May 4, 1987, the Chanhassen City Council approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 87-2 which
was comprised of 16.29 acres (area outlined in red in the photo below); the subject site (Parcel A:
6.82 acres); and the abutting parcel to the north and west (Parcel B: 9.47 acres). The CUP was
approved for eight storage buildings to be constructed in three phases; a stormwater pond on the
northernmost comer of Parcel B; and one monument sign along Stoughton Avenue.
The storage buildings in Phases I and II were constructed soon after approval of the CUP and
occupied approximately 20% of the total 16.29 acres, while Phase III remained vacant. A condition
of CUP 87-2 prohibited outdoor storage on the site.
On February 10, 1992 the Chanhassen City Council approved an amendment to CUP 87-2 to allow
the rental of trucks and trailers with the following conditions:
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17,2008
Page 4 of 15
1. The applicant shall provide a landscaped screen with evergreens along the fence line at the
southwest comer of the site.
This condition has been met.
2. The storage of the trucks and trailers shall be confined to the area shown on the site plan and
the area shall have a gravel surface.
This condition refers to the area along the fence line in the area labeled Phase III. located
in the northwest corner of Parcel A (approximately 3 % of the 16.29 acres). The site is in
violation of this condition. There are vehicles being stored throughout the Phase III area
as well as along the eastern portion of the property. Also, the current owners have
discontinued the rental service and are storing miscellaneous vehicles such as boats,
recreational vehicles, motorcycles, personal trailers, cars, etc.
3. The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptable to the Planning Commission and a
letter of credit shall be submitted to cover the cost of material installation and one-year
warranty.
This condition has been met.
4. There shall be no more than 20 trucks and 4 trailers and no trucks can exceed 26 feet in
length.
The current number of vehicles stored on site far exceeds the number specified in this
condition. Also, the applicant is requesting an amendment to this condition to allow 60
parking stalls.
The City Council also approved the first reading of an amendment to the Fringe Business District
to allow screened outdoor storage as an Interim Use in the BF district. The City Council tabled
action on the Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow outdoor storage until the second reading of the
ordinance amendment.
On February 24, 1992 the City Council approved the second reading ofthe zoning ordinance
amendment to allow screened outdoor storage as an Interim Use Permit in the Fringe Business
(BF) District. The City Council also approved Interim Use Permit 92-1 to allow screened
outdoor storage for the mini-storage facility located at 1900 Stoughton Avenue.
Administrative Subdivision
Minnesota State Statue 272.162 exempts commercial parcels that result in an area of five acres or
larger from the subdivision process. As such, the 16.29-acre parcel was administratively
subdivided into two parcels, Parcel A (6.82 acres) and Parcel B (9.47 acres), and was recorded at
the Carver County offices on June 22, 2004. This lot split did not require a public hearing nor
did City subdivision regulations apply.
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17,2008
Page 5 of 15
When the 16.29-acre parcel was split, creating Parcel A and Parcel B, the legal description for
Conditional Use Permit 87-2 was not amended to exclude either parcel. Therefore, the
conditions of approval for CUP 87-2 and IUP 92-1 are still applicable to both Parcels A and B.
Parcel A contains the approved storage buildings and outdoor storage area (Phase III) and Parcel
B contains the approved green space and ponding area.
Parcel A was sold to the applicant in 2004. As a result, Parcels A and B are now under separate
ownership. This creates a conflict with regard to enforcing the conditions of approval or
revoking the conditional use permit in its entirety. The required pond located on Parcel B was
never installed, nor is there a drainage and utility easement allowing Parcel A access to that area
or the authority to install the pond. Parcel A does not have the capacity to install an adequate
NURP pond on site. The applicant is requesting relief from staff s interpretation that a NURP
pond must be installed due to the fact that the storage facility has been operating under these
existing conditions for over 20 years.
Parcel B is also limited with regard to the use and potential future development of the property.
Future improvements on the site may require an amendment to the conditional use permit. The
property owner was notified of the limitations via certified mail, dated May 22, 2008.
To eliminate similar situation from occurring in the future, the City will be reviewing a future
ordinance amendment alerting property owners to potential revocation or require a CUP IIUP
amendment to ensure compliance with the city code due to subdivision of a property with an
approved CUP or IUP.
Signs
In 2007, staff received a phone call inquiring about storage of vehicles on the site for an internet
vehicle sales company. This triggered the compliance inspection of the site. Upon inspection on
August 8, 2007, staff noticed several signs were in the process of being refaced. Two ofthe three
permanent signs were completed; however, the new sign face was not yet installed on the pylon
sign. Staff instructed the installers to stop installation of the pylon sign face as they had not
received a permit to reface any of the signs, nor do they meet the sign ordinance requirements.
The BF district is permitted one ground low-profile sign. Such sign may not exceed 24 square feet
of sign display area nor exceed 5 feet in height. The original site plan for the mini-storage showed
the sign along Stoughton Avenue. The current monument sign along Stoughton Avenue exceeds
the ordinance requirements and is 48 square feet and 10- feet tall. Additionally, two other permanent
signs were erected on the site, over the years, without sign permit approval. These non-permitted
signs include a 60 square-foot, 18-foot tall pylon sign on the north side of the subject site and a 48
square-foot, 8-foot tall monument sign along Highway 212 (MnDOT right-of-way). Staffwas
unable to locate sign permits for any of the signs located on the site.
Staff has worked with the applicant to address the sign issues. Being that neither staff nor the
applicant are able to provide record of sign permit approvals for the property, staff has
referenced the 1986 sign ordinance for the BF district. This is the ordinance that was in effect
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17,2008
Page 6 of 15
at the time of the original CUP approval. The 1986 ordinance allows up to two signs, one per
street frontage; one of which may be a pylon sign.
Following that inspection, staff further researched the conditional use permit for the mini storage, at
which time staff noted the following:
1. The 16.29-acre parcel was split and is now under separate ownership, and the approved pond in
the north corner of Parcel B was never constructed. This is a violation ofthe conditions of
approval for the CUP.
2. The outdoor storage of various vehicles on the property exceeds the approved 24 rental trucks
and trailers and had expanded from Phase III to the include the east side ofthe property.;
3. The aforementioned non-permitted signs exceed the sign ordinance, both in size and number.
ANALYSIS
Although the originaI16.29-acre parcel has been split into two separate parcels, the legal description
for approved Conditional Use Permit 87-2 was not amended to exclude either parcel and therefore
governs both Parcels A and B.
The applicant purchased Parcel A containing the mini storage facility in October of2004, and has
been operating it with the current violations, including the lack of stormwater treatment, several
illegal signs, and excess outdoor storage, prior to the August 2007 compliance inspection.
Stormwater Treatment
The ponding area is located the northernmost corner of Parcel B. The CUP 87-2 staff report
addresses the pond, labeling it a detention pond. The report states; "A detention pond sized for the
pre-development runoff rate should be provided to hold the water prior to discharging from the site.
The runoff would then be discharged to the culverts under Highway 212." May 4, 1987 Condition
of Approval (4) "A detention basin should be included in the site drainage plan and be designed to
limit the on-site runoffto the predevelopment rate for a 100-year storm event."
The National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) requirements were not recommended by the Federal
Government until 1988 and the City did not adopt NURP standards until 1991 , when the Surface
Water Management Plan (SWMP) was adopted. The requirements for the 1987 proposed pond are
not consistent the current on-site water treatment requirements. If the pond would have been
constructed, the applicant would have the right to continue to use it in its current condition.
l\dditionally, Pareel ,\ does not have a drainage easement with the O':lflef of Par eel B to access or
construct: the pond area to meet the current req1:Hrements. The owners of Parcels A and B have
worked out an agreement to construct the pond according to current NURP standards. The
pond will be constructed in the original location approved in 1987.
In addition to the lack of stormwater treatment, there is evidence that the runoff from the storage
facility drains directly into the Highway 212 right-of-way, rather than to the 1987 approved ponding
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17,2008
Page 7 of 15
area on Parcel B. The drainage into the Highway 212 right-of-way has caused erosion within that
area.
The applicant worked with MnDOT to
remedy the erosion along Highway 212
right-of-way, caused by the runoff from
the storage facility.
7.5" ID CORRUG. PLAS11C PIPE
SURROUNDED BY RlPRAP AT OUTLET
The applicant constructed a swale, catch
basin with an underground pipe and a rip-
rapped daylight outlet. The purpose was
to guide the drainage in a northwesterly
direction along the southerly right-of-way
of State Highway 212. The drainage then
stays in the right-of-way until it runs
under Highway 212, via the culvert, and
enters Assumption Creek. There is no
evidence of storm water treatment prior to entering the creek. Discharge to the 212 right-of-way
requires written approval from MnDOT.
The applioant states that storage buildings have been on the site without adequate ponding for
over 20 years and they do not have aeoess to the 1987 approved ponding area loeated on Parcel
B, nor does Parcel A have the capacity to provide the required pOflding. The applieaflt is
working with staff to maximize the stormwater improyemeflts on their site to the best of their
ability. The proposed improvemeflts are more effective than. the original holding pond required
as a condition of approval in 1987.
The applicaflt is proposing the addition of two infiltration ponds; one east of the storage
buildiFJ:gs (removal of illegal outdoor storage), and one north of the storage buildings 'l:ith a
release directed toward the approved ponding area on Pareel B.
The applicant is proposing to add a detention pond in the northernmost corner of the
Parcel B. This is the natural low-lying area approved for the detention basin for the parcels
regulated under CUP 87-2.
Upon review of the HydroC^..D plans and stormwater calculations for the two proposed
Infiltration Ponds, submitted by McCain and Associates dated May 28, 2008 August 8, 2008,
staff concludes the following:
1. Drainage and utility easement is shown but must be revised to include:
a. Add ten feet of width for a total of 20 feet of easement between the drive entrance
and the pond easement.
b. Provide drainage and utility easement description and drawing.
c. Drainage and utility easement must cover entire 944 contour on the east side of the
pond.
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17,2008
Page 8 of 15
2. Update sheet 2 of2 skimmer detail to show a berm elevation of 744.
3. Plans and report must be signed by a registered engineer registered in the state of
Minnesota.
4. Security of $12,000 must be provided to the City for the construction of the pond and
maintenance of erosion control, along with the signed CUP agreement.
5. The pond must be completed no later than November 15,2008.
6. A detailed erosion control plan will be needed. At a minimum, this plan shall include:
a. Erosion control blanket (category 3) on all slopes 3:1 or steeper. This includes the ponds.
b. Perimeter silt fence needs to be shown. This shall be heavy duty dovln gradient of the
two pond features and any remo'lals associated with the storm se>:ler placement.
c. A re-vegetation plan for all disturbed areas. Deep-rooted woody vegetation should be
used along the north side of the north pond is encouraged north of the outdoor storage
area.
d. An inspection of erosion control must be conducted prior to construction
commencement.
1. Based on the caloolations f.or the combined ponds, the capacity will be exceeded for the north
pond during the 100 year e'/ent. f~n emergency overflovl tnllst be shown for both ponds.
This emergency overflow shall require permanent stabilization.
2. Staff is concerned with concentrating the flo':l from the poad outlet to Parcel B. LA~
alterflative oatlet llRlst be utilized to minimize disruption to Parcel B.
3. Based upon l.*isting soil conditions and pond design, infiltration is likely to oceur. This
should be acco1:1fl-ted f-or in the model.
1. The area adjacent to the northerfllimits of the proposed outdoor storage area sho&ld have
some type of filter strip and energy dissipation best management practice.
While the proposed infiltration ponds do not meet all of the NURP standards; based upon the site
constraints, with the exception of the abo'le comments, the applicant has taken adequate
measures to address stormwater treatment and rate control. Staff is cOflcerned about the
maifltenance of these ponds; therefore, a drainage and atility easement over the ponds is beiflg
requested. The submitted stormY/ater caloolatiofl s shaH be revised as necessary prior to
instaHation of the Infiltration Ponds.
The proposed storage spaces are included in the drainage calculations for the proposed ponds. The
current parking stalls on the east side of the property will be removed and replaced with the abo'/e
mentioned infiltration ponds. . The total impervious coverage for Parcels A and B is 3.79 acres or
23% of both parcels under CUP 87-2 and IUP 92-1.
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17,2008
Page 9 of 15
Outdoor Storage
Documentation on file at City Hall for the mini-storage facility shows the condition of approval
prohibiting outdoor storage has been an ongoing violation. The earliest documentation is from
September, 1991. Following the 1992 amendment to allow storage of rental trucks and trailers,
there is documentation from 1997, 1999, and 2007 which also reflects the storage of boats, RV's
and other miscellaneous vehicles, none of which are permitted via CUP 87-2. The condition of
approval for the 1992 CUP amendment limited the storage to the west fence line in Phase 1II and
required a gravel surface; i.e. there shall be no more than 20 trucks and 4 trailers and no trucks
can exceed 26 feet in length.
Upon purchasing the mini-storage in 2004, the applicant discontinued the truck rental use and
continued the outdoor storage of various vehicles. Upon the 2007 city inspection, the applicant was
informed that the outdoor storage on the site was limited to the rental trucks and trailers and along
the west fence line of Phase 1II of the site. The applicant would like to expand the outdoor storage
to allow a total of 60 parking spaces for miscellaneous vehicle storage, i.e. boats, RV's, cars,
motorcycles, etc. in Phase III. There will not be any grading required as part of the requested
amendment to the CUP as the area labeled Phase III was the approved location of the rental truck
and trailers in 1991. With the addition of the outdoor storage spaces, the landscaping must also be
increased to screen the outdoor storage.
City Code requires all
outdoor storage to be 100
percent screened from
public view. As shown
on the right, the storage
area is visible when
traveling along Highway
212. To remedy this, the
applicant is proposing to
add landscaping along the
north side of the existing
fence line to supply
adequate screening. This
will decrease the visual
impact on the neighboring properties.
The mini-storage hours of operation are Monday through Friday 9am to 6pm, Saturday lOam to
3pm, and closed on Sunday. The applicant has upgraded the site by installing a video security
system that runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and an automated entrance gate that operates from
6:30 am to 8 pm daily. The addition of the security cameras and self-closing gate is beneficial to
the safety of the site and will decrease possible vandalism and limit any danger to the public
health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of the neighborhood.
Staff is recommending approval of the amendment to expand the outdoor storage in Phase 1II to
allow a total of 60 parking stalls with conditions.
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17,2008
Page100f15
Signs
The site was purchased by the by the applicant in 2004 and the name ofthe mini-storage changed to
Nick's Storage & Parking. All of the signs are currently legal nonconforming or illegal and were
ref aced without permit approval and do not comply with the City's current sign ordinance.
^ sign variance may be granted '.",here it is shovm that by reason of topography or other conditions,
strict compliance with the requirements of this ordinance 'llould cause a hardship. The BF district
permits one ground low-profile sign not to exceed 24 square feet of sign display area and shall not
exceed 5 feet in height. The original site plan for the mini-storage showed the sign along Stoughton
Avenue. However, over the course of the 20 years since the approval of the mini-storage in 1987,
two additional signs, a monument and a pylon sign, have been erected on the north side of the site,
visible along Highway 212. It is unclear if sign permits were submitted and approved for the
signs located on the property. Staff has referenced the 1986 sign ordinance to determine what
should be allowed on the site.
1986 sign ordinance in the BF district (summary):
9-7-1 One ground low profile business sign shall be permitted per street frontage, with a
maximum of two such signs per lot. Maximum 80 sq ft display area and 8 feet tall
and must be located a minimum 10 feet from the property line. In no case shall any
lot contain more than two freestanding business signs, whether such signs are pylon
or ground low profile signs.
9-7-2 One Pylon business sign, not exceeding 64 sq ft of display area shall be permitted
per lot. A pylon greater than 64 sq ft but equal to or less than 80 sq ft shall obtain a
CUP. Such sign shall be located at least 10 feet from the property line and shall not
exceed 20 feet in height. In no case shall any lot contain more than two freestanding
business signs, whether such sign are pylon or ground low profile signs.
Sign 1: Reference the 1986 sign ordinance
Sign 1 does not meet the defmition of a ground low
profIle sign; which means a business sign affixed
directly to the ground, which directs attention to a
business, commodity, service, or product offered on the
premises. The applicant will lower the sign to the
ground to meet the ground low profile definition. The
current display area is the maximum allowed and may
not be expanded, as the sign is legal nonconforming.
The logo area (storage building, vehicles and sunburst)
occupy less than 30% of the sign area, which meets the
current sign ordinance.
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17,2008
Page 11 of 15
A sign permit is required for Sign 1.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow The existing non conforming 61 square foot, 10 foot
tall monument sign along Stoughton .^. venue The monument sign was refaced in 2007 without a
permit and the size and sign face do not meet the requirements of the sign ordinance. City Code
requires dimensional lettering a minimum ~-i inch deep and limits the logo area to 15% of the sign
display area.
Staff is proposing to amend the sign ordinance to allow flat lettering on monument signs, and
limiting the logo area to 20% of the sign display area. Staff is recommending denial of the sign
variance to allow Sign 1. The applicant must replace Sign 1 with a sign that complies '.'lith the Sign
Ordinance requirements, and must receive sign permit approval.
Sign 2: This sign will be removed from the property.
There is a 48 square-foot, 8-foot tall monument sign
along Highway 212. This sign was not approved with
the original site plan for the CUP. Staff is not sure
when this sign was erected. Staff understands that
there was a pre-existing illegal sign installed by the
prior owners some time ago and it appears to be
located within the State right-of-way. The current
owners replaced the sign in 2007 and have agreed to
remove it. ; hO'.'/ever, staff would support a sign
variance to allow one monument sign along the
Highway 212 frontage, provided it complies with the
Sign Ordinance requirements and must receive sign
permit approval.
Sign 3: Reference the 1986 sign ordinance
There is also a 60 square-foot, 18-foot tall illuminated pylon sign
facing Highway 212. The applicant is requesting a variance to
allo'.'; the pylon sign. The pylon sign currently sits empty as the
installers were instructed to stop installing the sign since they did
not have permit approval to reface the sign.
The 1986 sign ordinance for the BF district allowed one pylon
sign for the site. The sign was erected over 10 years ago,
however, an inspection will be required as part of the permit
application to ensure the sign is structurally sound.
A sign permit is required for Sign 3.
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17,2008
Page 12 of 15
Additionally, this sign 'NUS never permitted as part of the Conditional Use Permit. The BF district
does not permit pylon signs; therefore, the pylon sign is a continuing violation of city code.
Staffis recommending denial of the sign variance to allo\v Sign 3 (pylon sign).
Sign 4: This sign will be removed
A 24 square-foot double-sided temporary, off-premise
directional sign was also added at the comer of
Highway 212 and Stoughton Avenue. This sign does
not meet the requirements of the City's Sign
Ordinance for directional signage.
On-premise directional signs do not require permit
approval; however, there are limitations to the size and
height of a directional sign.
Section 20-1255 (2) allows up to 4 directional signs per lot. A directional sign shall not exceed 4
square feet and or 5 feet in height. Off-premise directional signs require City Council approval and
shall only be permitted where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or
inappropriately routed through residential streets. The applicant has agreed to remove this sign.
All ofthe signs currently located on the site are a continuing violation of City Code. Staffis
recommending approval of a sign variance to allow one 21 square f-oot, 5 foot tall monument sign
along Highway 212 frontage '.'lith conditions.
Signs 1 and 3 shall obtain sign permits prior to altering the signs as stated above. Sign
permits will not be issued until Signs 2 and 4 are removed.
Landscaping
The applicant shall provide screening for the northwest comer of Parcel A. A total of 15 Black
Hills Spruce shall be planted at existing spacing to fully screen the outdoor storage area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions and adoption of
the attached findings of fact and action:
"The PlarJ1ing Commission recommends approval of City Council approves an amendment to
Conditional Use Permit #87-2 to permit a total of 60 additional outdoor storage spaces to be located
in Phase III ofthe site with the following conditions:
1. The 60 parking stalls for various vehicle storage, shall be confined to the area labeled Phase
III in the staff report and the area shall have a gravel or grass surface.
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17,2008
Page 13 of 15
2. The applicant shall provide 15 Black Hills Spruce along the fence line to provide 100 percent
screening of the outdoor storage area.
a. The applicant shall submit a letter of credit to cover the cost of material installation
and one year warranty.
3. Drainage and utility easement is shown but must be revised to include:
a. Add ten feet of width for a total of 20 feet of easement between the drive entrance
and the pond easement.
b. Provide drainage and utility easement description and drawing.
c. Drainage and utility easement must cover entire 944 contour on the east side of the
pond.
4. Update sheet 2 of2 skimmer detail to show a berm elevation of 744.
5. Plans and report must be signed by a registered engineer registered in the state of
Minnesota.
6. Security of $12,000 must be provided to the city for the construction of the pond and
maintenance of erosion control, along with the signed CUP agreement.
7. The pond must be completed no later than November 15, 2008.
8. A detailed erosion control plan will be needed. At a minimum, this plan shall include:
a. Erosion control blanket (category 3) on all slopes 3:1 or steeper. This includes the ponds.
b. Perimeter silt fence needs to be shown. This shall be heavy ffiHy aO\vR gradient of the
tv:o pend features afld any remo',als associated with the storm sewer placement.
c. A re-vegetation plan for all disturbed areas. Deep-rooted woody vegetation should be
used along the north side of the north pond is encouraged north of the outdoor storage
area.
d. An inspection of erosion control must be conducted prior to construction
commencement.
9. Any additional development to Parcel A or Parcel B shall require additional stormwater
ponding. (This would include Phase III of Parcel A).
10. The 60 outdoor storage units shall not increase the hard surface coverage on the site.
11. The outdoor storage shall be removed from the site upon completion of Phase III of the
mini-storage facility.
12. Sign 2, the ground low profIle sign along Old Highway 212, must be removed.
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17,2008
Page 14 of 15
13. Sign 4, the directional sign at the corner of Old Highway 212 and Stoughton Avenue,
must be removed.
14. Sign 1, the entrance sign along Stoughton Avenue:
a. Shall meet the dermition of a ground low pronIe sign in that it must be in contact
with the ground;
b. May not exceed 64 square feet of sign display area;
c. May not be greater than 8 feet in height;
d. A sign permit must be approved prior to alterations and Signs 2 and 4 must be
removed prior to sign permit approval.
15. Sign 3, the pylon sign along Old Highway 212 - A sign permit must be approved prior
to alterations and Signs 2 and 4 must be removed prior to sign permit approval.
1. The area adjaeef1t to the northern limits ofthe pmposed outdoor storage Mea should ha'/e
some twe of filter strip and energy dissipation best management practice. The applieant
shall ':lorIe ':.'ith staff to maximize the storm'Nater treatment on PanJel '^L.
a. Based on the calculations for the combined pond, the capacity will be eKceeded f{)r
the north pond during the 100 year 0'/eflt. fLfi emergef1ey oyerflow must be shown
for both pooos. This emergency overtlo':.' shall require permanent stabilization.
b. ,^~ alternative outlet must be 1:ltilized to minimize disruption to Pareel B.
2. The submitted stomr,'.'ater calemations shall be revised as neeessary prior to installation
of the Infiltration Ponds.
3. Storm pipe material shall be HDPE or RCP.
1. Based upon existing soil conditions and pond design, infiltration is likely to oeew:-. This
should be accounted for in the model.
5. The applicant shall provide security to OOSl:lfe the infiltration ponds are installed.
6. ,^illy diseharge to the Highway 212 right of way requires v/ritten approval from MnDOT.
7. A draiaage and utility easement shall be placed over the infiltration ponds ltp to the high
water le'lel.
fL. "The Planning Commission recommends approval of City CotHleil approves Planning Case
08 10 fur a sigH variance to anow a monumoot sign along Highv;ay 212 frontage, in addition to
the permitted monument sign along Stoughton fL venue ':lith the fuUo...;ing eonditions:
Nick's Storage & Parking
June 17, 2008
Page 15 of 15
1. The monument sign along Highway 212 shall eomply 'l/itR the sign ordinanee requiremoo.ts of
the Chanhassef1 City Code.
2. The sign along Stoughton Ayenue shall eomply v;i-tR tIle sign ordinance requirements of ilie
Chaflhassoo. City Code.
3. The pylon sign along Highway 212 must be removed.
1. A sign permit must be appr{)';ed prior to replacing the moautneflt signs along Stoughton .^.. '1enae
and Highway 212.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Stormwater Appeal Letter dated June 3,2008.
4. Discussion of Proposed Stormwater Controls.
5. Sarver of Entire Site.
6. Sl:lfYey of Existing CoRditions
7. Survey of Proposed Conditions dated 8/8/08 by McCain and Associates.
8. Original Conditions of Approval for CUP 87-2 and !UP 92-1.
9. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing.
g:\plan\2008 planning cases\08-1O nick's storage & parking\staff report.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
INRE:
Application of Jacques Gibbs for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 87-2 to allow a total
of 60 outdoor parking stalls and an after-the-fact sign variance request for Nick's Storage and
Parking in the Fringe Business (BF) District.
On June 17, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Jacques Gibbs for an amendment to conditional use permit
87-2 and an after-the-fact sign variance for property located at 1900 Stoughton Avenue. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Conditional Use Permit
amendment and after-the-fact sign variance, planning case 08-10, which was preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested
persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Fringe Business (BF) District.
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Office/Industrial.
3. The legal description of the property is shown in the attached Exhibit A.
4. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a
proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of
the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items:
a. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
Finding: The original Conditional Use Permit was approved in 1987 and is
therefore a temporary use until MUSA phasing scheduled for 2015. When sewer
and water become available to the site, the parcels may be rezoned to
Office/Industrial and accommodate a more intense use. Approval of the
amendment to Conditional Use Permit 87-2 to allow a total of 60 parking stalls
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or
general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The outdoor storage area labeled
Phase III was approved in 1992; however, it was specific to the number and type
of vehicles stored on the site. The applicant has installed security cameras and an
automated entrance gate which is only operable during scheduled business hours.
The applicant will provide additional landscaping along the fence line to provided
100 percent screening to traffic along Highway 212.
1
b. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
Finding: The site received a conditional use permit in 1987 for the existing mini-
storage facility. Sewer and water is not available to the site until Municipal
Urban Service Area (MUS A) phasing, scheduled for 2015. Based on the
conditions of approval for the amendment to the CUP, the request is consistent
with the city's comprehensive plan. The Conditional Use Permit allows
reasonable use of the property until sewer and water become available, at which
time the site may be rezoned to Office/Industrial and accommodate a more intense
use.
c. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will
not change the essential character of that area.
Finding: The mini-storage buildings are currently constructed on the site.
Outdoor storage was approved in 1992 for 24 rental trucks and trailers. The 60
stalls for various vehicles may change the trip frequency of the mini-storage;
however, the mini-storage facility is open Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to
6 p.m., Saturday from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., and closed on Sunday. The applicant has
upgraded the site by installing a video security system that runs 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, and an automated entrance gate that operates from 6:30 a.m. to 8 p.m.
daily. The character of the area will not change with the addition of the outdoor
storage stalls.
d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Finding: The existing mini-storage facility has been in business since 1987. The
60 parking stalls may increase some of the traffic to the site; however, the mini-
storage has specific hours. The gate automatically closes and is locked between
the hours of 8 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.
e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of
the proposed use.
Finding: The site does not have sewer and water services available to the site
until MUSA phasing, scheduled in the year 2015. The detention pond will
provide adequate drainage and stormwater treatment prior to entering Assumption
Creek. The site is currently served by Stoughton A venue, which is maintained by
the City of Chaska. The applicants have installed security cameras and a self-
closing gate on the property for off hours to ensure safety on the site.
2
f. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will
not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: The site will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
The mini-storage has been in operation since 1987 and all outdoor storage shall be
100 percent screened from public view.
g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions
of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,
odors, rodents, or trash.
Finding: The use will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare. The 60 storage spaces may increase the traffic to the site; however, the
intention of the site is for the storage of recreational vehicles. The hours of
operation arelimited to Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturday 10 a.m.
to 3 p.m., and closed on Sunday. The applicant has upgraded the site by installing a
video security system that runs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and an automated
entrance gate that operates from 6:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily.
h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic
congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding: The site currently has access off of Stoughton A venue; there have not
been any issues with traffic congestion from the site.
1. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or
historic features of major significance.
Finding: Based on the conditions of approval for the mini-storage and outdoor
storage, the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar
access, natural or scenic or historic feature of major significance. The applicant is
proposing to install a detention pond according to NURP standards, to treat the
stormwater prior to entering Assumption Creek.
J. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Finding: The mini-storage is an existing facility and will not change the aesthetic
appearance of the area. In addition to the proposed 60 parking stalls, as a
condition of approval, the applicant will install landscaping to screen the outdoor
storage from public view along Highway 212.
k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Finding: The proposed 60 parking stalls will not depreciate surrounding property
values as the storage facility has been in operation for over 20 years. The
3
applicant will also ensure that the outdoor storage is 100 percent screened along
Highway 212.
1. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Finding: The mini-storage buildings have been active since 1987 and meet the
use criterion of the city code. Based on the conditions of approval, the outdoor
storage will meet the 100 percent screening requirement of the city code with the
addition of 15 Black Hills Spruce along the fence line. Thus, there will be
minimal visibility from Highway 212. The proposed detention pond meets all of
the NURP standards required by city code.
5. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not
grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the by reason of topography or other conditions, strict compliance with the
requirements of this ordinance would cause a hardship.
Finding: The mini-storage facility was only permitted one sign in accordance with
CUP 87-2 to be located along Stoughton Avenue. The monument sign for which
the variance is requested does not meet the size or height requirements for the BF
district. The location of Sign 1 is clearly visible along Stoughton Avenue and will
be clearly visible at 24 square feet and 5 feet tall. There is no topographical reason
for Sign 1 to exceed the sign ordinance requirements for the BF district.
Sign 3 (pylon sign) was not permitted as part of CUP 87-2, nor is it a permitted use
in the BF district. Due to the topography and required landscape screening for the
site, a monument sign along Highway 212 is a reasonable request, provided it meets
the requirements of the City Code.
b. That the variance does not adversely affect the spirit or intent of this ordinance.
Finding: The Fringe Business (BF) district allows one sign per lot and the
Conditional Use Permit approved one sign along Stoughton A venue. The
monument sign along Stoughton A venue far exceeds the requirements of the sign
ordinance for the BF district. The pylon sign facing Highway 212 was never
permitted and it is not a permitted use in the BF district. The monument and pylon
sign are after-the-fact variance requests and are a continuing violation of the city
code.
The intent of the sign ordinance is to allow a business reasonable opportunity to
advertise their name and service. The mini-storage facility has street frontage on
Stoughton Avenue and Highway 212. A 24 square-foot, 5-foot tall monument sign
is permitted on Stoughton Avenue and, due to the topography and required
landscape screening, a monument along Highway 212, in addition to the monument
4
sign along Stoughton Avenue, is reasonable, provided it meets the requirements of
the City Code.
6. The planning report Planning Case #08-10 dated July 14,2008, prepared by Angie
Auseth et al is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDA TION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to
the conditional use permit to allow a total of 60 outdoor storage stalls and approve a sign
variance to allow a monument sign along Highway 212, in addition to the monument sign along
Stoughton Avenue, on property located at 1900 Stoughton Avenue, based on these Findings of
Fact.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17th day of June, 2008.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
5
Planning Case No 08 - 10
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147
.... .'
Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APR 0 3 2008
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
PLEASE PRINT
Applicant Name and Address:
Nick's Storage & Parking
1900 Stoughton Avenue
Chaska, MN 55318
Contact: Jacques Gibbs
Phone: 612-386-3140 Fax:
Email: gibbs@nmfn.com
--~ .. ._~--------~~---_.._-~.-
Owner Name and Address:
Progress Valley Storage of Minnesota, LLC
Attn: Jacques Gibbs
6921 Beach Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Contact: Jacques Gibbs
Phone: 612-386-3140 Fax:
Email: Gibbswealthcoach@aol.com
NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
x
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment Lf;)..5
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAG)
-*-
Interim Use Permit (IUP) 6ttt:door ~tore~ge
x
Variance (VAR) Signs and Hardcover d06
Non-conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Planned Unit Development*
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
x
Sign Permits
x
Notification Sign ~
(City to install and remove)
Sign Plan Review
Escr or Filing Fee~ney Cost** IDe
- 50 CU SPR/V ACA/.H31)N AP/Metes & Bounds
- $450 Minor SUB
TOTALFEE$ 988 l)d -lt136o cC#73_U
C F ~e&,1. tr:Sl4.
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing. ~ \ \1>.-b:2...\S )( tt~ -= it tt>3i1:l-~
x
Site Plan Review (SPR)*
Subdivision*
*Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11"
reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format.
**Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application.
$CtoNNED
., .
Progress Valley Storage of Minnesota, LLC, d/b/a
PROJECT NAME: Nick's Storage & Parking
LOCATION:
1805 and 1900 Stoughton Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibits A and B attached
TOTAL ACREAGE:
6.82 acres and .50 acres
WETLANDS PRESENT:
YES
x
NO
PRESENT ZONING: BF
REQUESTED ZONING: BF
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST: Applicant requests that CUP No. 87-2 and IUP No. 92-1 be am'ended
so as to allow 60 outdoor storage stalls (grassed only; not paved or graveled) to be
rented to the general public for storage of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, and
equipment; as shown on plan attached as Exhibit C.
Applicant requests such variances as will allow it to continue to operate its existing
including but not limited to signs, hardcover, and outside storage.
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
Progress Valley Storage of Minnesota, LLC,
; d a ick's Storage & Parking
I r --
X by.
Signature of Applicant
Its Firr~/
Signature of Fee Owner
~
oL/-oJ-og-
Date
Date
G:\pLAN\fonns\Development Review Application.DOC
Rev. 12/05
.
EXHmIT "A"
That part of the Southwest Quarter ofthe Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 116,
Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying southwesterly of the southwesterly right- of
way-line of U.S. Trunk Highway No. 212; northwesterly of the northwesterly right-of-
way of County State Aid Highway No. 10 (Stoughton Avenue formerly the Chaska and
Shakopee Road); and easterly and southeasterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southwest comer of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter;
thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 11 minutes 32 seconds East along the
south line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 525.00 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 26 degrees 57 minutes 49
seconds West a distance of 399.00 feet; thence North 62 degrees 19 minutes 46 seconds
East a distance of 485.18 feet more or less to said southwesterly right-of-way line ofU.S.
Trunk Hi~way 212 and there terminating.
.\'
\ :::'
EXCEPTING THEREFROM urn FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL:
Commencing at the southeast comer of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter;
thence North 4.06 chains to c.enter of Chaska and Shakopee Road, the point of beginning
of tract to be conveyed herewith; thence South 64 degrees 30 minutes West 170 feet to
point of center of said road; thence North parallel to East line of said Southwest Quarter
of the Southeast Quarter to south line of Trunk Highway No. 51; thence southeasterly
along south line Trunk Highway No. 51 to point where sqme intersects East line of said
SW ~ of SE 1/4 ; thence south along said east line to place of beginning.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMA nON
NICK'S STORAGE, 1900 STOUGHTON AVE., CHASKA (CHANHASSEN), MN
1. 2004 Change in Ownership. In the summer of 2004, Applicant, Progress
Valley Storage of Minnesota, LLC, purchased the Gary Brown parking and
storage business (and the land and buildings) located at 1900 Stoughton
A venue.
2. Status of Driveway Abutting on SW'ly side. City Staff has noted the presence
of a driveway which appears to encroach on the southwesterly edge of
Applicant's property. That driveway appears to serve the Dungey property
with lies to the west of Applicant's property. Applicant has been unable to
locate any recorded document which would authorize the Dungey property to
maintain a driveway on Applicant's property.
3. Components Of Brown's Business Prior to the Sale. Brown called his
business "Progress Valley Storage". The business consisted of three main
components: 1) a U-Haul type rental business, 2) rental of self-storage lockers
within the six buildings on the site, and 3) rental of outdoor storage pads for
the parking of boats, trailers, and vehicles. Brown established the storage
business sometime in 1987.
4. Ten years of Out Door Storage. After the City's Compliance Review in 2007
(see Item No.9 below) Applicant reviewed the City's files on Brown's 1900
Stoughton Avenue business. City files state that Brown's business included
rental of out door storage pads since at least 1997.
5. Components of Applicant's Business. Applicant has continued to operate the
business, just as Brown had operated it. However Applicant has terminated
the U-Haul component.
6. Signage. At the time of Applicant's purchase of the business, the property
was served primarily by one sign located at the entrance to the yard on
Stoughton Avenue, and one internally illuminated double faced pylon sign
visible to Highway 212 near the northeasterly corner of the property.
7. No History of Complaints. Applicant operated the in-door and out-door
storage business from the summer of2004 through the summer of 2007,
without complaint from the City or anyone else for that matter.
8. 2007 Damage to Pylon Sign. In the summer of2007 the one of the faces on
the Progress Valley pylon sign was storm damaged. Applicant engaged a sign
company to perform repairs on the sign, including the installation of
replacement sign faces - but using Applicant's trade name of "Nick's Storage
& Parking".
9. 2007 Compliance Review. The new Nick's Storage signage triggered a City
Compliance Review which was conducted in August of2007. The applicant
learned for the first time that city staff had compliance issues with the signage,
the outside storage, and hard cover. Applicant was surprised. The pylon sign
appeared to be at least 10 years old. Applicant had believed that it was merely
continuing Brown's business which had been in place at that location since
1987.
10. Applicant's Goal. Applicant wishes to continue to operate the in-door and
outdoor storage business as Brown operated the business it.
11. Loss of the Benefit of the Pylon Sign. At the direction of City Staff,
Applicant did not install the face panels on the pylon. The pylon and the
emptyframe remain in place.
12. Loss of Business. Since removal of the face panels on the pylon, Applicant
has experienced a significant drop off in business. Since 2004 Applicant has
surveyed its new customers as to how they learned of Applicant's storage
business. The majority of new customers have indicated that were drawn in
by the illuminated pylon sign on Highway 212.
13. Costs Up, Revenue Down. Applicant's real estate taxes have increased
approximately $20,000 over 2004 levels. Vacancies are up, and that is largely
due to the loss of the pylon sign.
14. Findings to Support Variances and CUP Requests. Applicant requests the
grant of hard cover and sign variances, and CUP/IUP Amendments. The
storage business has been in operation at the present location since 1987.
With the exception of the termination of the U-Haul business, Applicant has
tried to continue to operate the storage business in the same manner as was
done under Mr. Brown's ownership. The buildings and internal drives
configured the same as under the Brown ownership. [Applicant has a)
upgraded exterior building maintenance levels, b) upgraded site security
(primarily by video monitoring system), and c) corrected a small wash-out
near the NE'ly corner of the property. Dave's Excavating did the repairs. A
call to that contractor indicates that the work consisted of repairing the wash
out, constructing a swale, constructing a catch basin and an underground pipe,
and constructing a rip-rapped daylight outlet. All of which has the effect of
guiding drainage in a NW'ly direction along the southerly right-of-way of
Highway 212.] Applicant has not created any detriment to the public welfare
or the public health, or to the safety/comfort/convenience of the
neighborhood, and has not impaired light or the air of adjacent properties.
Applicant has not congested the public streets, nor increased fire danger, nor
endangered public safety, nor impaired neighborhood property values.
Applicant has not impaired service levels required for streets, police
protection, fire protection, drainage, refuse disposal, public water and sewer
systems, or schools. Applicant's business is not a detriment to community
economic welfare, and does not involve uses which produce excessive traffic,
noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Applicant's business does
not result in loss of solar access, or loss of naturallsceniclhistoric features, or
loss of aesthetic compatibility with the area.
15. Applicant's Business Offers Zoning Enforcement Benefit. Applicant believes
that its storage business serves a public purpose. In residentially zoned areas
of the City, certain out-side storage activities are not allowed. Applicant is a
resource to which Chanhassen residents can be directed for the storage of their
vehicles, boats, trailers, and equipment.
16. Conclusion. In summary, Applicant wishes to continue to operate the same
business which it purchased in 2004, and operate it in the same manner as it
was operated by its prior owner for at least ten years.
S:\Netback\7636\O 1 \SUPPLEMENT AL INFORMA TION.doc
Proposed Stormwater Controls for Nick's Storage and Parking,
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Proposed stormwater controls for the Nick's Storage and Parking site include a NURP
pond located in the north corner of the Dungee property and a stormwater diversion berm
located along the northeast property line of Nick's Storage and Dungee properties. The
diversion berm will intercept runoff from Nick's Storage and Dungee properties, and
divert it from the MNDOT ditch to the pond. The pond is designed in accordance with
City of Chanhassen requirements, and is shown on attached Sheets 1 and 2.
Runoff from both Nick's Storage and Dungee properties are served by the proposed
stormwater controls. RydroCAD analysis was performed for pre-existing conditions
(prior to development of the Nick's Storage site) and for current development conditions
to demonstrate that the peak runoff rate for current conditions (with the proposed
stormwater controls) does not exceed the peak runoff rate for pre-existing conditions.
PondNet analysis was performed to demonstrate the nutrient removal performance of the
pond. These analyses are attached.
The pond will be constructed by excavating soils to the pond bottom at Elevation 738,
and constructing a containment berm along the MNDOT right-of-way to Elevation 744
with a weir outlet at Elevation 742.5 that will discharge to the MNDOT ditch. Normal
pool depth will be 4.5 feet. A bench with a slope of lOR: 1 V will be constructed from
Elevation 741.5 to 742.5, and the weir will be equipped with a skimmer in accordance
with City of Chanhassen requirements.
The topography of the site directs approximately 83% of the watershed to the east and
west ends of the pond. Those areas of the pond will therefore serve as sediment forebays,
and short-circuiting through the pond will be minimized.
A easement will be placed over the pond to the high-water mark (Elevation 743.8).
The following table provides a summary of peak discharge rates for pre-existing and
proposed conditions.
Peak Discharge (cfs)
Desian Event Pre-Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions
2-vear, 24-hour 1.24 0.66
10-vear, 24-hour 11.31 3.46
100-year, 24-hour 32.83 26.18
;;>
15
~
w ~
~
a-
HI
a-
EB
-;3--
..~.,
.... ;'
.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT #87-2
INTERIM USE PERMIT #92-1
1. Permit. . Subject to the terms and co~ditions set forth herein and with the
Conditional Use Permit recorded with Carver County on June 30, 1987, Document No.
88330.J the City of Chanhassen hereby grants:
a) A conditional use permit for truck and trailer rental at Progress Valley Mini-Storage
site.
b) Interim Use pefIIlJt for screened outdoor storage.
2. Property. The permit is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows:
See attached Exhibit A
3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions:
a) The outdoor storage shall be completely screened by a 100% opaque fence or
landscaped screen.
b) The area for screened outdoor storage shall be improved with a gravel surface.
c) The outdoor storage will be removed from the site upon completion of phase 3 of
the mini-storage facility.
d) The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptable to the Planning
commission and a letter of credit shall be submitted to cover the cost of material
installation and one year warranty. '.
4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public
hearing for violation of the terms of this permit.
5. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized
construction has not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall
lapse,.unless an extension is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance.
6. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a
criminal misdemeanor.
Dated: February 24. 1992
PAGE
Jo~
PAGES
It .:~
. '
e
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
." ~";
~~-
. '/ . /
/. ..,
By: -. rL, . / .c: . --c.
onald J--eIimieI, Mayor
~
By:
420a~
Don Ashworth, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
( 55
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 30 tJ, day of
~ , 19i..~y Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor and Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the
City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and
pursuant to authority granted by its City Council.
~ag~"-<APi
N ary bI c
-
DRAFTED BY:
Campbell, Knutson, Scott ~~ II/tv
& Fuchs, P.A 1)..}Jl'"'
Suite 317
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
(612) 452-5000
RNK
+-~.-..-..-..-..,....__.....,-,._..-..._+
"0.""" KAREN J. ENGELHARDT ,
t ~e: NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA J
t ~~~&, CARVER COUNTY ,
I ~ My Commission Expires OCT. 16. 1997 f
+ _____oeMoo......... .......................................+
OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF CAR~
Filing Fee ctft /6
This is to certi y that this docJ}rgent
~ed in t~office ~ the~day
19~.D.at o'clock
M. and was duly recorded as
document no.. . 1.34.0~.:6
. HANSON JR.
PAGE_-d_or3
PASES
by:
: '\
.'
r
r
EXHIBIT A
All that pat't of the SE 1/4 of the SWl/4 of Section 34. Township 116. Range 23.
Cat'vet' County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the SE corner of said SW 1/4 Section 34-116-23 .running thence North
along 1/4 line to the South" line of right of way of Milwaukee and St.
Louis Railway Co.,; thence Southwesterly along South line of said right of way
to South line of said Section 34; thence East along said Section line to
place of beginning. Being all that part of SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 said Section lying
South of right of way of said Milwaukee and St. Louis Railway Co., and con-
taining 2 1/2 acres.
AND
The SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 34, Township 116, Range 23, lying southerly
of the Southeasterly right of way line of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway
Company, Carver C~unty, Minnesota, EXCEPTING therefrom the fOllowing desct'ibed
parcels:
Parcell: A stt'ip of land over and across the SW 1/4 of BE 1/4 Section
34-116-23 being 53 feet in width on each side of center line of Trunk Highway
No. 51, and said .center line being described as follows: From a point on East
line of said Section distant 874.8 feet Northerly from the Southeast corner of
said Section; thence running in a Southwesterly direction at an angle of 82054'
with said Section line for a distance of 1000.5 feet to a point; thence deflect
to the right 9000' on cut've with delta angle of 57007' and radius of 71.6.8 feet
for a distance of 441.4 feet more or less to the East line of said SW 1/4 of SE
1/4; thence continuing on said curve for a distance of 272.6 feet to a point;
thence on a tangent to said curve fot' a distance of 272.6 feet to a point;
thence on a tangent to said curve fot' a distance of. 819.6 feet to a point;
thence deflect to the left on a 15000' curve with delta angle of 95026' and
radius of 383.1 feet for a distance of 393 feet more or less to the North and
South 1/4 line of said Section and there tet'minating excepting therefrom that
part of the right of way of Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company which lies
within said strip.
Parcel 2: Beginning at point 20.00 chains West from SE corner of said
Section 34 running thence North 4.06 chains to center of Chaska and Shakopee
Road; thence South 64030' West 8.93 chains; thence East 8.16 chains to place
of beginning. Containing 1.65 acres.
Par~el 3: Commencing at SE corner of SW 1/4 of SE 1/4; thence Not'th 4.06
chains to center of Chaska and Shakopee Road, the point of beginning of tract to
be conveyed het'ewith; thence South 64030' West 170 feet to point of center of
said road; thence North and parallel to East line of said SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 to
South line of Trunk Highway No. 51; thence Southeasterly along South line Truck.
Highway No. 51 to point where same intersects East line of said SW 1/4 of SE
1/4; thence South along said East line to place of beginning. Containing 1/2
aCt'e, more or less.
Parcel 4: Commencing at the point of intersection of the East line of
the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 34-116-23, and the Northerly right of way
line of U.S. Trunk Highway #212, as the same presently exists and runs through
said SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 34, which said point of intersection is the
place of beginning of the land to be herein described; thence running
Northwesterly along said Northerly right of way line a distance of 292 feet to a
point thereon; thence turning and running East parallel to the South Section
line of Said Section 34, a distance of 329 feet, more ot' less to the said East
line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 34; thence turning and running South
along said East line JJ distance of 312 feet more or less to the place of
beginning, lying and ~eing in the SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 34-116-23 and con-
taining 1.10 acres of land, more or less.
PAGE
3 OF~~
PAGES
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDA VIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
June 5, 2008, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota;
that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for
Nick's Storage & Parking - Planning Case 08-10 to the persons named on attached Exhibit
"A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing
the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid
thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the
records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this S+k day of :::ru.~<.. , 2008.
"- \.
I
KIM t MEUWISSEN j
Notary Public-Minnesota
My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010
tn
I:
:a;
CI)
==
tnS
1:.-
.- en
... en
ctI._
:E:E
u E
._ 0
::sO
::Stn
0.1:
-'2
o I:
u..!!!
:;:::0.
o I:
Z
tn
I:
:;:::
CI)
CI)
==
I:
tno
1:'-
._ en
cu.~
CI) E
:E:E
.2 0
::sO
::stn
0..=
-I:
o I:
ctI
u-
._ a.
....
o I:
ZCl)
en
en
ctI
J:
I:
ctI
J:
o
(I)
en
ctI
J:
I:
ctI
J:
o
C
o
'en
~ ';I '(3
~ lXic3~
e: . 0) :::c:
iU'. ~:sQ
E ~ ..-.ell Z
Ole: E-(/)..... I
e:!!! ......
'C ~"O O)'c-
8l : ffi a.. 'E ~ a)
..c:..c: 0)"0- .2
!a::(j)(/)<(t5 g '0
:c: 0 ~ ::> .- C c:
I-- CD L. C '-
."Oellctiell~ ~ III
EO~5'OO ell ;S
'OlO:;:;-(/) a.. -
o.,s 0 '5 ell (/) ~ 0
Oe:l'-c~O) ~ -8
~ ~ I'- 0 a.'!; ~. 'iij
l'-~uiOell~ ell Q)
-.-.....occa ..... III
ell-gO)-ell .8 Iii
<Xl 91 .0 C "0 0) (J) ~ a;
o CD E 0) c g>(!) (/) c'"
~"O ell E ell'c ~::.:: 0) Q)
_ ~ ~ "0 . - LL :::C:.2 >:5
I'- .5 0 c .ea "0 a:: Z <( c:
,... e:._ 0) (/) 0) <( C 0
O)~ g E ~ co.. ui o,!!!
COl::J<( o-o_".o-a.
::JOlo O)N"'V.o~llI
....,,s 0 0 a:: €,W a g>E
:>,.5 _ ::::: 0) 0) (!) (/) 0 c:
ell CD ell ~ Q 0.<( 0) en.S!
~ ]i::: :::d~ e oa:: ~ 0 1i
0) - r-: 0- 'C 0. Q 0 0
::J'@:!: 0) ell cl- ell 0>-
I- ::loa::> O(J)-,,...<I:
Q)
E
i=
~
(I)
-
ca
C
s::
o
:;::;
ca
(.)
o
...J
ca
UI
o
0..
o
...
a..
c
.Q
1:: C\f .~
Cll I Q
~ lXic3(/)
e: ' 0) Ss:::
iU'. ~EQ
E~ :!:~Z
g'a5 E~ I
.~ g ~ O).!; LL
Ol Ol co a.. E ca
~=.....Q)"O'-'
.- '0 Q) (/) <( t5 gc
~L.~~c:S
.~ ell ell ell.~ ~
Eo~ 5'00 ell
0.'0l0:;:;_(/) a..
,sO'5ell(/) 06
Oe:l'-cO)Q)
~ 0 I'- 0 8::.~ ~
I'-g(/)Oell~ ~
Cti'gCi5.8cca .8
<Xl Ol .0 C ~ 0) (/)
o g E 0) c g>(!) (/)
~"O ell E ell 'C ~ ::.::
- ~t5"O (,iLL:::C:.2
I'- .5 c - "0 a:: Z
,...e:=Q)(/)Q)<(
O)~gE~co..ui
5~6-::g2~~
-, ,s 0 0 a:: €' W <!J
:>,.5 _ ::::: 0) 0) (!) (/)
ell Q; ell ~ Q 0.<( 0)
~]iI::Jffiea::~
0) = ~ o-'c 0. 0 Q
::J c'- Q) ell C I- ell
l-::loa::>O(J)-,
Q)
E
i=
~
(I)
-
ca
C
s::
o
:;::;
ca
(.)
o
...J
ca
UI
o
0..
o
...
a..
- ..
s:: >os::
cat:: 0
.~ (I):;::;
is.g.B
~...O
<l:0.....J
- ..
s:: >os::
cat:: 0
,~ (I):;::;
is.g.B
q....o
<l:0.....J
.8
"00) c :0>0
~g~ ~ ~ ~ C caS
-~"O (/) - ~ =w
Soell (/) > ~O)>o O)O)caUl
o.o~ ~ ::J 0) ::J~.oiE~~~
.o~ 0 O(/) ~ Qc.....o-t- .c
ell 0>= 0) 'u ~<( :!: ell 0
~.O)-;: .~, '5 0) = (/);; o.-..c~
~ et5 c Ci t5::J > 0)(/)_(1)
~c~ o.~ 0 .. ESci:!:"O~=.c
E~~ "Oe ~ t _c~~~~==E-~
.....-0 ~o.ci~ (j) ~Oc::J-O >s::
OEO)..oO)=E 0) 000)(/)00)(1),8:;::;
CO~~o.~.oE E ~~~O~~=cam
~~~O)e~~o <Xlellell-o.>UI E
_ Cl-o.O 0 0) QO)~O)OO'="O
Sc(/) 0) ~ cCis::(/)o~=_(I)s::
.~ c.. +:; C> ~ CI) .c CD +-' ctS _ ro g (l) _ '- U) 0
O>~~c_c-~ ~ ~t5~~c=O=~
c c .~ - ~ E"O 0.. '> 0) .::: 0 0 ;: - (I) en
~~EoOo.oc ~CtiCi5~O::JO)~t::=-
~EO)o;:c~ell .oO)(/)~@o>~oUlE
~O~-~O)"OO)"O (/)Cl~(/)~__>~(/)(I)o....cE
o O)~(/) 0) c_ (1)0
.- .8 g> ~ 0) O).~ (/) ell W =!:E 0) -: 0 .... >
~"O~->~O)g Cio.C-(/)C\I-Cl=>O
::Jc::J~O_~O O)iESiM3~caU~
O'ellog>cj.....~ ~;:ciOell~a(j)~(I)E
.~ Ci5 . 0 ell _ ~ 0> - 0) .0 - . CD 0) (I) '0 s::
~ -.....0) C O)(/)(/)ellelll'- E-"'S::
-O)O~ Cell_ O)t5(/)O)=C\I~ ~o..-
_::JO)->ell(/)..... '(/) - -C\I(/) r- 'w
o 0- '~O 0>'6> 0 _ ell t5 0) W c W . .- 0) (I) ii:
0)~.....c=~cO)!0).8~~iEO)~:!:5ci.c(l)
(/) o.'c'- 0. ~ '0 _ 0. ell ~'- - 0 -
0~(/)ell;:ellEO~5~~E>O>So~s::~
~c:EO)~ E~~w- ~O'OCtico)(/)Oo
::Jell-~S~O::JQ)~~~~50)EQ)g~(I)-
o.gSg(J)I-Oo..5g0;:_O)c ellEE~
0)0.0.0 >O);:~~oE>o~-
~ g.~ ~,...C\ien~ =5 ;:]i<(-E.8~0 0 C.
UlC)
s:: s::
(1).-
0..-
0..(1)
ca (I)
::E::E
_(I)
ca~
.c-
:5:1li
a)
.2
'0
c:
III
:c
-
'0
Ol
"C
'iij
Q)
III
...
Q)
0)>
~~
O)Q)
>:5
<(c:
CO
o,!!!
E~
g'E
Oc:
en .S!
0'lG
00
0>.2
,...<1:
O)-g~
~o- (/)
-~"O 0)
-.....ell (/)
::J 0 0) (/)
0.0_ ::::l
.o~_ t5 0
ell Cl = Q) .~
::::l '05;: ~ ~ "0
o C.!::: ..... 0 C
> 0) ell 0. 0) .Q
E ~ ~ "0 '0' (/)
-0 0)..... (/)
o E (/) 0. 0 .-
co~UioO)=E
.- ..... - 0. 0. ~ -g E
0::::: 0;$ e~ 0.0
-::Jc (/) 0.0 0)0
.~ 0.:;:; Cl Q) ~ 0)
Cl.!; 0) c ~ c(/) - ~
Q) .- ....... .......
-2 .!; E ;: a ~ E"O
ellS g o.ec
O).o~o;:c-ell
~ 0 - - .~ 0) -0 "0
OOClO) > (/)0)0)
=- ~.....O)>(/)
.0 "0 .2 - 0) ..... '05 g
::Jc::J~o>o.oo
o.ellOCl =0)
(/) _ ::::l C ......~
:E (/) ~ e ell .~ ~ 0>
-O)O~O)CellC
- ::J 0) - > ell .-
o o-'~ Cl'- 0 (/) Co ~
0) ~ e .!; ~ = c 0) ~
~ _(/) 0. Co :s: 8:: Q) ~ '6
0. -.~ 0) > ell E g ~
:;ffi~~~O)E~u
o.o_oS~o::JO)
=::J=(J)I-Oo..~
0) 0. 0 .0 +-'
~ 0..0 ::::l
I- ell ell 0.,... C\i en ~
UlC)
s:: s::
(1)._
0..-
0..(1)
ca (I)
::E::E
_(I)
ca.c
.c-
:5:1li
~..
UI~
s:: s::
0(1)
:;::;E
mE
::J 0
00
o (I)
_ ~ c:O>o
(/) (/) c ca~
'S; .~ 0) > 0) 0) ~ UI
0) ::J .- .0 C E ~ > ...
(/) OCl.....O)t-ca~
ell ><(c 0 E..... ell 0 (I) ~
0) (/) o.-..c~
Ci =t5::::l;:Q)(/)_(I)
Cl g ~ ~ E ~ .~ ~ ~ ~
c ~o ..o~O (I)~,
:;:; ~ c::J-oE>s::
~ oOO)(/)oQ)(I)o:;::;
E ~ ~ ~ 0 ~~ :t:: .g m
<Xlellell-o.>UI E
0) ~0)~0)00:t:'O
5 CCic~o~_.!s:::
~ ~--~o~=o.!!!.~
o .. '> ~ .~ f5 0 ;: - a; g:
~ Cti ..... '0' 0 ::::l 0) ~ t:: :t::: .-
.0 O).m ~ @ ~ ~ (/)S &...cUl EE
~Cl(/)(/)~_~ (I)
ell~=!:E~-:o ....reoo
Ci c - C\I +-' Cl= >
0).00) E S i M 3 .~ ca U CI
'0"'''''--- s::
~;:c ,u,...o.Q)UI(I)._
-Q) (/) O)~Cti'" CD Q) (I)'os::
- (/) ,- ~ E.c ... s::
Q)0(/)0)=C\1 ~a.ca
(/) Q) ell C ell C\I .~ Q) (I) -a..
o .~ ~ oE' ~
- e c 0) O)~.'!:::- ci~ (I)
C 0. ~ E >0> ui a .Q ~ .c
ell(/)oo.o-- (/) -
-, ellcO)(/)oo
;: C'(3 (/) ~ 0) 0 '-E (I) _
::J 0'- '.8 (j) 0) E c s::...
0;: c E ell E'- 0
>O);:::!: ~~ o~ o~.;::
=5;: S<( 0.0 ell 0 0 C.
~..
UI~
s:: s::
0(1)
:;::;E
mE
::J 0
00
Ql
~ m 00 ~ ~
._2 ;; ~~~ ~~ 0 ~ u~
co 0 .2 Q) [ fa::: 'E >.~ ~Q) ~.9
ffio>u Cii'~ca ([0 (\1C:~.25 c.$:.c
==;::0> -gal(/) .! g<C=a Q)=: Q).!:!2o
<Q)~ Q)~ca ~o ~m~ ~Q) ~~~
~~~ E~~ca~~ ii& u~ ;~~
!2 Q) Q) Ee 0 Q):e:c~ Q) a.~ 55 '- Co >.~
1i)D.o 8 Q) a.~ tU.2..~= E'E ~.9 cn~ g
~g>.s ~~KE~Eii;~8E O~ 2-=<1>
en'~ 2 cu Q) Q) -g 0 CD -6 ~ .9 t: ~~ ~"g 5
~!~ -g.~=ca~a~~(/)~ '5~ ~g~
~oo ca~SE~E~(/)=Q) 0>> UU
E::a> c:==oQ)~'Ci5'o;>'~O.em ~>.Q)
~g~ 8~~:~cuffi~E~ ~g g=E
~a.(I) cu1ij~..c::;SQ)Eo-,- -co (l)O~
BCUQ) ~~ca-o~Eme~ a~ ~~c
u~= 0 -8.~E-o.5~ra S:s:: -0-0
~'5o ~.~~~~~~~~i:L gs ~.9~
-i-d>'E1i5-.!:aEQ)-::Q)~ OCf) ct:~
~ ~ ~ C Q) CD .2 u.!::: E ~ "0 :::J!. - cu ....: 5 8..=
gS-~.5EB~~-g'EmS= ~m o~s
:5 a3 8 Q) i c a cu - Q) ~ ~ ~.~ 'S; 0 ~ Q) (/)
c: E U) E c..~ Ql Cl ~ E'en 0 E -" e g. i3 :5 9
8~~~~~='~~:~K>.g a.~ Q)c'~
ur~j;mEE~~~~EQ)i~ .9.~ ~~~
== c: "0 s::. (J e .0 - "'0 "0 .c C>>~ a...
.~~~~.28~g~-g;s~'5 ~-; .~.2Q)
~u~cagoffi~Eca'E~o2 ec cogs
~80S=~~~~IDIDo~en ~~ ~.-u
~~~~!~~~~~~~~~ .g& ~~s
-c=2-~~-0~co~ID~IDm D=C
~ : :.~ .2 D-:= m () ~ m :ag ~:a .!a ~ a.~ 8
~~,~';~~~~~~~iID~$IDO mgl
~ID~.~g=~~B&I~~~~~~ =~~
E.g ~ 1ij 8:<(.~ ~ ~.~ :] en ~ ~'o ~ B ~ g C
ID~~~~~~g~2~~g~~I~.~8:t
[Egi~~~~~~~~~28~~~~m8
g<m~Ea.~~~~mg~~~c~gIDm
IDC'~ID:]~cE:] .c~~ ~~mo~S~
ij)E!'E ID en ~~ E 0 5 Cd ~ g-~OcS E.~ C>~
o~oEm~~oO~~~ ~IDo~mE.~-
_ID~.-SIDCO~Cdc~IDEC~~~~E~c
'E.~~~c~IDID~~.E~ C'd~m~~o~.-
.. :::> ~ 0 ~ o.!!! E.s:: 0 Ql 2 2 ~ ;;: Q g-a;"* 0 2' ~
!i~~ .~'~~~!E~2 .~ojID~~~~
~C!'~~~C'doeno~-SES~&Em.E~TI
~~~.~E~!~~-oiw~o~eng.~cC~
g~EE~C'dCdC'dgg~~2c~ID~~~~~~
~ oE enen~~~enIDC'droc~OIDCD-c
~~Oo.~~tC~Cd~~~~~~B~C'dmOS
==.2 gu g ~8.~.~~.~ g s~.~~ 0 5E = ~g
~~c~~~!0~E~~i-~~~8~1~~
~~~.2~~~i~EEo~~g~.~~~~8~
~g~~~~~~ID8~~,~'~;~~~'~~~~
-WOCD-C'dW~==~OO~~~OO<(Cd~mC'd(/)
C:3.. ...
~ -a en ~
'_~ ~ ~~t ~~ 2 E ~~
co 0 .Q ID ~ ~ = c ~.- ~ ID ~ S
mID-o ~'2:Cd ~o cocg>.2= c~c
~=ID "OIDen 2 g<(~ ID~ ID.~O
<(ID~ a5~~ ~~ 8:aj~ 5;.~ ~~~
~~g E~~Cd~~ Cd~en "05; ;~~
<<S ID E ~ 0 ID t.~ 'ID ~! a5 ~ ~ ~~
~D~ oID~~C'dO~~E- -0 Cd_O
~ en 0 ~ > e E ~ 'rnE ; 0 a5 0 +-' ~ --: c
>~.~- ~Cd~ oE~enoE .~ "5~~
en CdS co: <1> <1>~ ID"OJQSt ~co: c c+-'
~~'~ ~.~~~~a~~~[ ~~ ~g~
::>g~ ~~5~~.ffi12~c~ ~~ .....oi
.~~E .Q~~~~Cd~~~en ~i g~E
2~~ ~~~~~IDEo-,~ S~ enO~
EC'd<1> EooC'd-O~E~~2 ow ~~c
u!~ .E ..8.~E-o,S~~ 2:!~ ~-o
~'5~ .5.~~B~~~~I~ ~2:! ~S;
-g-+-'c:ncQ)-'~EQ)~~IDJ!? ocn Cta
~~IDC<1>IDOU~EC'd"O~_ co. ~O~
Q2~~.5E~~~~~~2:!5 ID~ 8~2:!
~a5g<1>iC~~~ID~~~.~ ~~ ~IDcn
c: E U) E c..~ Ql Cl ~ E'en 0 E -" e g- i:3:5 '2
8~~~~,~='~~:~K~~ ~~ <1>C~
~QlE~;(/)EE~m~~E<1>~~ S.~ S~~
~ >c<1> -~~oO~ID~ "OID -ID-
<1><( ~ID-g()oi.~~~~ oo..S ~= g>~~
'S<1>t=- - cen+-'Eo en .c-Q)
Cl>~~co:gena5.gE<<Sceno~ ~c ~g5
~80s~.~~~~<1><1>g~oo ~~ ~'-o
c ~ C'dcOIDc-enE~,_en o~ <1>~
~~~~S~~=5~~~~~c:n~~ g~c
~~",:'~~~~~O~ID:a~~~~~ .gc.'~8
_+-,~.__ID~o~-E~ ~IDID5 C<1>
~a5'~.~.~~ETI5~::~<1>~~~ ~g=
~EQ)~o..<<1>:= ~enCd"O=_CO:~ -<<SID
cu~"fd ~ ,:t::: ~~'2:] w ~~'oc.8 ~gc
ID~~~2~!c~o~.~gg~~~ .~8:~
[E g~ ~ ~~.~= ~~ 5-cu e8 ~'ffioo~ co: 52
.2<(CdooErr..~g~~<1>gS>~c~g<1>~
IDC.~ID~~cE:] ,c~~ ~~Cl>o'~S~
ii>~"E ID en ~g E 0 ~ Cd ~ g.~oc:= ~.~ o~
O~O-Q)~CdOO~~~ ~IDO~IDE~+-'
_ID~.55<1>~o~mc~<1>c~~~~E"Oc
'E.~~~C~<1>ID~~'2~E~~<1>~uo~'-
.. ::> ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ E ~ 0 Q) 2 S ~ ~.E g.~ * 0 ~ ~
~~<1>~ ~CdEr~EID:] Oen~<1>IDen~~
~~~~~&~8~~~~E~~~RE~'~~TI
ii~en~~ID~~~oicn~o~enS.~ca5'~
g~E'~'~~~Cdgo~~SC~<1>~"O~~u!
~ oE enen"O~~(/)Q)~Cdc~OQ)C~c
D.. ~o o.~ ~ t c ~{g ~c ~ ~ t):c ~ ~ g> co <1> 8.S
~ 5 ~ 0 ~ ~ 8. ~ g a; .~ g s :E .~ -g 0 5 E 5 ~. g
.~ :{Q.5 ~~ ~ ~ 8..~ E.!a 5 i;; ~ Cd ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~
~.~c~o~<1>Q)mEEO<1><1>oen.~co~o~
~E2c~=~~~oE~c.~~2<1><1>'~~~E
~~&~~m~~!~85~~~~~~~~~g
C:3.. ...
GARY W DUNGEY &
GARY L BROWN LLP
1910 STOUGHTON AVE
CHASKA , MN 55318 -2218
CHASKA ECONOMIC DEV AUTH
ATTN: DAVE POKORNY
1 CITY HALL PLAZA
CHASKA; MN 55318 -1962
PHEASANT CREEK FARMS LLC
1827 VALLEY RIDGE TRL S
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8419
FlY AN NIEDFELDT
1925 STOUGHTON AVE
CHASKA . MN 55318 -2217
STEVEN M FINK
1915 STOUGHTON AVE
CHASKA, MN 55318 -2217
RICHARD K WERMERSKIRCHEN &
DOROTHY E WERMERSKIRCHEN
1930 STOUGHTON AVE
CHASKA . MN 55318 -2218
GARY & BARBARA DUNGEY &
TERI CONSTRUCTION INC
1910 STOUGHTON AVE
CHASKA, MN 55318 -2218
ALL STEEL PRODUCTS CO
1165 HIGHWAY 212 E
PO BOX 73
CHASKA , MN 55318 -0073
ST JOHNS EVANG LUTH CHURCH
300 4TH ST E
CHASKA. MN 55318 -1830
PROGRESS VALLEY STORAGE OF MN
6921 BEACH RD
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 -5227
KENNETH J & SHARON B SCONBERG
1791 STOUGHTON AVE
CHASKA, MN 55318 -2213
KAREN UNRUH OLESON
48209 270TH AVE
PALISADE, MN 56469 -2291
HIGH TERRACE LLC
PO BOX 260
CHASKA , MN 55318 -0260
HENNEPIN CO REG RR AUTHORITY
HENNEPIN CO GOVT CENTER
300 6TH ST S
SW STREET LEVEL
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487 -0999
DONALD J WENZ &
BETTY ANN CLARK
1955 WENZ AVE
CHASKA, MN 55318 -1273
TROY R & LESLEY J POPPITZ
3640 EDGEHILL RD
CHASKA, MN 55318 -9346
DENNIS L & DANA L NYSTROM
1800 FLYING CLOUD DR
CHASKA, MN 55318 -2435
JOSEPH ROBERT MONNENS
1781 STOUGHTON AVE
CHASKA , MN 55318 -2213
ALLEN L BRAKEMEIER
450 LAKE VIRGINIA TRL
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9772
CHASKA CITY
C/O NOEL GRACZYK
1 CITY HALL PLAZA
CHASKA. MN 55318 -1962
JAMES E & KIMI L GABOURY
1905 STOUGHTON AVE
CHASKA. MN 55318 -2217
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AMENDED AND REST A TED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #87-2
INTERIM USE PERMIT #92-1
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein and with the Conditional
Use Permit 87-2/ Interim Use Permit 92-1 recorded with Carver County on April 23, 1992,
Document No. 134346, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants:
a) A Conditional Use Permit for a mini-storage facility.
b) Interim Use Permit for screened outdoor storage.
2. Property. The permit is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as shown on the attached Exhibit A.
3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions:
a. The 60 parking stalls for various vehicle storage shall be confined to the area labeled Phase
III in the attached Exhibit B and the area shall have a gravel or grass surface.
b. The applicant shall provide 15 Black Hills Spruce along the fence line to provide 100 percent
screening of the outdoor storage area.
1. The applicant shall submit a letter of credit to cover the cost of material installation and a
one-year warranty.
c. Drainage and utility easement is shown but must be revised to include:
1. Add ten feet of width for a total of 20 feet of easement between the drive entrance and the
pond easement.
2. Provide drainage and utility easement description and drawing.
3. Drainage and utility easement must cover entire 944 contour on the east side of the pond.
d. Update sheet 2 of 2 skimmer detail to show a berm elevation of 744.
e. Plans and report must be signed by a registered engineer registered in the state of Minnesota.
f. Security of $12,000 must be provided to the City for the construction of the pond and
maintenance of erosion control, along with the signed CUP agreement.
g. The pond must be completed no later than November 15, 2008.
1
h. A detailed erosion control plan will be needed. At a minimum, this plan shall include:
1. Erosion control blanket (category 3) on all slopes 3:1 or steeper. This includes the ponds.
2. Perimeter silt fence needs to be shown.
3. A re-vegetation plan for all disturbed areas. Deep-rooted woody vegetation is encouraged
north of the outdoor storage area.
4. An inspection of erosion control must be conducted prior to construction commencement.
1. Any additional development to Parcel A or Parcel B shall require additional stormwater
ponding. (This would include Phase III of Parcel A).
J. The 60 outdoor storage units shall not increase the hard surface coverage on the site.
k. The outdoor storage shall be removed from the site upon completion of Phase III of the mini-
storage facility.
1. Sign 2, the ground low profile along Old Highway 212, must be removed.
m. Sign 4, the directional sign at the corner of Old Highway 212 and Stoughton Avenue, must be
removed.
n. Sign 1, the entrance sign along Stoughton Avenue:
1. Shall meet the defInition of a ground low profile sign in that it must be in contact with the
ground;
2. May not exceed 64 square feet of sign display area;
3. May not be greater than 8 feet in height;
4. A sign permit must be approved prior to alterations and Signs 2 and 4 must be removed
prior to sign permit approval.
o. Sign 3, the pylon sign along Old Highway 212 - A sign permit must be approved prior to
alterations and Signs 2 and 4 must be removed prior to sign permit approval.
4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing for
violation of the terms of this permit.
5. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized construction has
not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse, unless an extension
is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance.
2
6. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal
misdemeanor.
Dated: October 13, 2008
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Tom Furlong, Mayor
(SEAL)
AND:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this_day of ,200_,
by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted
by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
P. O. Box 147
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
3
.."..~ ..,
, :~
,.
EXHI.BIT A
All that part of ~he S~ 1/4 of the SWl/4 of Section 34, Township 116, Range 23,
Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: .
Commencing at the SE corner of said SW 1/4 Section 34-116-23 .running thence North
along 1/4 line to the South. line of right of way of Milwaukee and St.
Louis Railway Co.,; thence Southwesterly along South line of said right of way
to South line of said Section 34; thence East along said Section line to
place of beginning. Being all that part of SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 said Section lying
South of right of way of said Milwaukee and St. Louis Railway Co., and con-
taining 2 1/2 acres.
AND
The SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 34, Township 116, Range 23, lying southerly
of the Southeasterly right of way line of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway
Company, Carver C~unty, Minnesota, EXCEPTING therefrom the fOllowing described
parcels :
Parcell: A strip of land over and across the SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 Section
34-116-23 being 53 feet in width on each side of center line of Trunk Highway
No. 51, and said .center line being described as follows: From 8 point on East
line of said Section distant 874.8 feet Northerly from the Southeast corner of
said Section; thence running in a Southwesterly direction at an angle of 82054'
with said Section line for.a distance of 1000.5 feet to a point; thence deflect
to the right 9000' on curve with delta angle of 57007' and radius of 71h.S feet
for a distance of 441.4 feet more or less to the East line of said SW 1/4.of SE
1/4; thence continuing on said curve for a distance of 272.6 feet to a point;
thence on a tangent to said curve for a distance of 272.6 feet to a point;
thence on a tangent to said curve for a distance of. 819.6 feet to a point;
thence deflect to the left on a 15000' curve with delta angle of 95026' and
radius of 383.1 feet for a distance of 393 feet more or less to the North and
South 1/4 line of said Section and there terminating excepting therefrom that
part of the right of way of Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company which lies
within said strip.
Parcel 2: Beginning at point 20.00 chains West from SE corner of said
Section 34 running thence North 4.06 chains to center of Chaska and Shakopee
Road; thence South 64030' West 8.93 ehdnl!. thence Es!!t 8.16 chaine tc plac~
of beginning. Containing 1.65 acres.
Par~el 3: Commencing at SE corner of SW 1/4 of SE 1/4. thence North 4.06
chains to center of Chaska and Shakopee Road, the point of beginning of tract to
be conveyed herewith. thence South 64030' West 170 feet to point of center of
said road; thence North and parallel to East line of said SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 to
South line of Trunk Highway No. 51; thence Southeasterly along South line Truck.
Highway No. 51 to point where same intersects East line of said SW 1/4 of SE
1/4; thence South along said East line to place of beginning. Containing 1/2
acre, more or less.
Parcel 4: Commencing at the point of intersection of the East line cif
the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 34-116-23. and the Northerly right of way
line of U.S. Trunk Highway #212. as the same presently exists and runs through
Baid sw 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 34, which said point of intersection is the
place of beginning of the land to be herein described; thence running
Northwesterly along said Northerly right of way line a distance of 292 feet to a
point thereon; thence turning and running East parallel to the South Section
line of Said Section 34, a distance of 329 feet. more or leas to the said East
line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 34; thence turnirig and running South
along said East line _a distance of 312 feet more or less to the place of
beginning,lying and ~e1ng in the SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 34-116-23 and con-
taining 1.10 acres of land, more or less.
J
fm ~ ~
.5't ~ ~
co~ '" IE
uJ -:J li!
oj ffi 53
:::iew ffi ~
Cl 0
'"
0..
~
~
~ ~
~ "
z ·
w a
~ i
0..
ffi
-:a--
~
....
....
~
....
~